Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [Lords]

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Training

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training scheme places have been taken up on Merseyside since the inception of the scheme.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): At 25 November there were more than 3,250 people on employment training on Merseyside.

Mr. Alton: Although it is good news that 3,500 people are now taking up training, 31,500 people under the age of 25 are unemployed in the Merseyside area yet paradoxically, the Merseyside chamber of commerce points to a skills shortage. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is worth looking again at issues such as the remuneration of people on the schemes, and does he agree that it is futile for people to indulge in litigation that is costly to the ratepayers when what is needed is co-operation between local authorities and the Government to put many of these unemployed young people into work?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I agree that the aim must be to try to provide training for as many unemployed people as we can. About 15,000 employment training places are now available on Merseyside, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring that to the attention of his constituents.
Historically speaking, Liverpool city council's action to punish local voluntary organisations and employers who co-operated with employment training was clearly against the interests of the unemployed. That is why we sought judicial review and won in the High Court. I hope that that is now behind us and that we can all get down to making employment training work on Merseyside.

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his proposed alterations of training arrangements.

Mr. Fowler: The White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", which I published yesterday, sets out new ways in which training and enterprise activities are organised and delivered both nationally and locally.
I held a number of meetings prior to the White Paper and will now hold discussions in a number of areas concerned with training.

Mr. Favell: The Government are to be congratulated on recognising that training requirements differ not only from region to region but from town to town. Centralised planning is not the answer; local involvement is the answer to getting things moving. That is how our great towns and cities were built in the first place. The training and enterprise councils are a marvellous idea. When can Stockport have one? If we can be the first in the north-west to get one, we shall leave the rest standing.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are not yet quite in a position to set out the prospectus for training and enterprise councils; it will be set out in the next few weeks. I shall bear Stockport's interest in this very much in mind.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general point. This is training for the local labour market. It is training for industry and it is relevant to jobs. That is what the new organisation is all about.

Mr. Wallace: As well as providing training for the unemployed, I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that it is important that companies invest in training the employees who already work for them. To that end, has he considered giving credit or assistance to companies that invest more than most in training, and giving it at the expense of the companies that are not pulling their weight in providing training for their employees?

Mr. Fowler: There are no proposals on that in the White Paper, but what the hon. Gentleman said about companies training their own staff is crucial. As we go into the 1990s, the difference between one company and another will be largely the difference between the people, and the skills and training of the people, in those companies. The responsibility for training people in employment must obviously rest with the employers.

Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the diminishing pool of young labour and the intense competition for it, it becomes ever more important to attract older workers back into employment? Will he launch an initiative into recruitment and retraining of that group of potential workers?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, a whole range of lessons about the new labour market of the 1990s will have to be learnt. One of the chief lessons is that we must train people who are already in employment to be as adaptable as possible to new skills. Another clear lesson is that we must examine alternative forms of recruitment. We need recruitment of unemployed people, women, older workers and ethnic minorities. Those are all opportunities and I hope that employers will take them.

Mr. Meacher: Why should employers who already show less interest and devote less money to training than employers anywhere else in Europe show any more interest or spend any more money as a result of the Minister's latest proposals? Why should they who have so manifestly neglected their own employees improve on the dismal


record of ET? Will the Minister confirm that ET has failed to attract anything like enough long-term unemployed to fill the 187,000 designated places? More than half way through the first six months, fewer than one third of the places have been filled.

Mr. Fowler: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is simply out of date on the attitude of employers to training in employment. More employers than before are now training in employment and a whole range of schemes such as the compacts initiative—the most recent—are proving employer's interest in training. In spite of all the opposition and the attempts at sabotage by the hon. Gentleman, the employment training programme has got off to a very good start. That is no thanks to the hon. Gentleman or to the Labour party. They have played a discreditable part in the whole employment training issue and they have no credibility whatever.

Small Firms

Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's initiative to encourage the Government to purchase goods and services from small firms.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): The Government are committed to improving value for money in purchasing and small firms have an important part to play in achieving this. I therefore discussed with ministerial colleagues ways to increase their Department's purchasing from small firms. Departments that are large purchasers now publish booklets designed to help small firms become suppliers to the Government and, in collaboration with the central unit on purchasing, we shall shortly be publishing further guidance for officials on small firm purchasing.

Mr. Lord: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House precisely which Departments have taken part in this initiative and what part they have played? Is he satisfied that both the Government and small businesses are benefiting from what is happening?

Mr. Cope: I am satisfied that both Government and small firms benefit from the initiative. It is all about value for money. All Government Departments are playing a part to some extent, but the purchasers which play a particularly big part include the Ministry of Defence, the National Health Service, the Crown Suppliers, HMSO and the PSA as well as others and ourselves.

Mr. Cryer: While wishing purchases to be made from small firms, may I ask the Minister to tell us whether a small firm is defined as one with under 200 employees, as a result of the Bolton committee report, or whether it depends on the EEC definition, which is that a small firm contains under 500 employees? Has this initiative been cleared with the Commission because, with the advent of 1992, will not preferential treatment to United Kingdom small firms be in breach of the treaty of Rome competition rules? Are we at last to take an initiative that is independent of the EEC?

Mr. Cope: No, we do not give small firms favoured treatment in the sense of giving them contracts that we would otherwise give to large firms, except where they give us value for money. In that respect, the EEC has nothing

to do with it and we can act entirely independently. For statistical purposes we use the Bolton committee definition. Given his experience in these matters, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is 200 employees in manufacturing firms and that various criteria are used for other types of firms.

Tourist Information Centres

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has concerning the number of tourist information centres which stay open for the winter period; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Currently, out of a total of 562 tourist information centres in England, 394, or 70 per cent., are open during the winter months.

Mr. Gregory: We must be losing an enormous opportunity by not having more tourist information centres open in the winter months. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a national scandal that such attractive venues as the Tower of London, which last year attracted about 2·3 million visitors, closes its information centre from autumn to Easter? Will he hold discussions with local authorities so that more tourist information centres are open to disperse visitors throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. We should like more tourist information centres to stay open for longer periods. The majority of those that are open only during the summer are in fairly remote areas. I gather that the Tower of London TIC is located in a temporary hut that is unsuitable for winter use, but discussions on that are taking place between the London tourist board and the London Docklands development corporation.
It is a shade depressing to note that the tourist information centre in York is closed on Sunday mornings.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that the success of TICs is due entirely to the tourist boards? Does he further agree that his current review of tourism should not damage in any way the network that those boards have set up?

Mr. Lee: I certainly would not say that the success is due solely to tourist boards, although they have had a considerable influence. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the money for the tourist information centre in Southport, which I opened about a fortnight ago, came from the local authority, English Heritage and the tourist board. It is a partnership.

Invisible Exports

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of Britain's invisible exports in 1987; and what percentage of this sum is attributable to the tourism and leisure industry.

Mr. Lee: In 1987 United Kingdom invisible exports amounted to £80 billion. The tourism account amounted to 8 per cent. of this, or £6·2 billion.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that that creditable figure reflects favourably on the investment by the industry and on the activities of the British Tourist


Authority and the English tourist board? What does the figure represent in terms of tourist numbers, and what effect has it had on employment?

Mr. Lee: Last year was a record year for visitors to this country, with 15·4 million coming here. For the nine months to September the figure is about 2 per cent. up on the same period last year, at 12·5 million. Jobs in tourism and hospitality are increasing at an average rate of 1,000 a week.

Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that the tourism and leisure industry is one of the worst payers in Britain, yet it is a profitable sector? Is he further aware that 40 per cent. of the work force are paid less than £132 a week, yet he tells us that the minimum protection provided by wages councils will be reduced? How can he justify that? Jobs are no good unless they give people decent incomes and dignity at work. The Minister is encouraging low-paid work, no training and a slum economy. That is the future for Britain.

Mr. Lee: May I say in personal terms that we are sorry that the hon. Lady is not in her customary place. Salaries and overall conditions of employment in tourism and hospitality are improving. Many of the better companies in the industry put huge amounts of money into training. I agree that more emphasis must be placed on training and the overall remuneration package, because staff turnover in the industry is unacceptable. But the position is getting substantially better.

Mr. Harry Greenway: How much did those 15·4 million visitors bring in foreign exchange? Is there a limit to the number of foreign visitors who can be accommodated comfortably in tourist inns?

Mr. Lee: I am sure that we can accommodate substantially more than we do now, and we want the number of tourists to increase. Of the £18 billion a year in total tourist revenue, £8 billion comes from visitors from abroad.

Mr. Strang: What effect will the appreciation of sterling have on invisible exports in general and on tourism in particular?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Treasury about invisible exports in general. The balance of payments deficit on the tourism account increased from about £1 billion in September last year to about £1·8 billion in September this year.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the north-west of England.

Mr. Lee: In October 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the north-west region was 307,900, a fall of 61,500 over the last 12 months.

Mr. Jack: I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent answer, but will he confirm that unemployment in Fylde has fallen by 28 per cent. in the past 12 months and that Lancashire as a whole has benefited from falls in unemployment as a result of the Government's policies, which have attracted about £85 million worth of inward investment into the north-west?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. He is well aware that the unemployment level in his constituency has fallen by 28 per cent. The unemployment level in Lancashire as a whole has fallen from just-over 62,000 in October 1987 to 48,000 in October 1988—a total fall of more than 14,000. Other programmes are designed to bring about an even greater fall, and there are nearly 13,000 participants with training managers under our employment training scheme. The new training and enterprise councils, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment yesterday when he introduced his White Paper, will also have a beneficial effect in the fullness of time.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that people in the north-west will be concerned about pay levels and the future of wages councils after the Secretary of State's statement yesterday? We fear that in the north-west that that will mean lower wages. Low pay in the north-west has not solved the unemployment problem so far. Does the Minister accept that jobs in manufacturing are 38 per cent. below the 1979 figure? When are the Government going to do something about that and get us to export more goods than we import?

Mr. Lee: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so churlish as not to draw attention to what has happened to the level of unemployment in his constituency over the past 12 months. The level has fallen by over 1,000, or by no less than 24·49 per cent. He knows how well north-east Lancashire is doing at the moment, because his constituency adjoins mine. His comments are completely incorrect.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Although the news that my hon. Friend has announced today is good, does he accept that there is a lot more yet to come? Does he also accept that when the unified business rate is introduced, and the existing business rate is abolished, that will be the greatest possible assistance to manufacturing industry in the north-west and should lead to significant reductions in business costs, and therefore to more jobs?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. In the north-west the unified business rate will have a beneficial effect on manufacturing industry, and therefore on employment.

Training

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people who have been on Government training schemes were removed for the duration of their training from the unemployed register since 1979 for each year, respectively, to 1988 and in total.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): No such estimates are available.

Mr. Flannery: That is a disgraceful and dodging answer. The Minister should get hold of those figures, because they completely condemn the Government. Is it not true that the Government have used 24 different mathematical methods to get the unemployment figures down? The Government's unemployment figures bear no relationship to reality. However, the figures that I have


asked for would show how many people were being trained—badly—only to keep them off the unemployment list.

Mr. Nicholls: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in all three propositions. Clearly figures cannot be available, and are not available, in the form that he requests. If they were, the records would have to show the origins of people on various training schemes and their destinations afterwards.
With regard to the way in which the figures are compiled, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that there have been only seven changes which have affected the unemployment count since 1979. Two of those changes were statistical and five were administrative. Only two led to any difference in compilation. Obviously the hon. Gentleman will not take my word for that. If he cares to check the record, he will find that the previous shadow spokesman for employment made the point on television, when the same accusation was made some little while ago, that if he were in government he would have no intention of changing the base on which the figures were compiled. Obviously he changed his mind by the time that he came to the House, but after all that is politics in the Labour party.

Mr. Paice: Is not training substantially different from unemployment? Unemployment is a total waste of human resources, whereas training seeks to build on human resources and to provide benefits for the future. Apprentices were never included in unemployment statistics, so why should anyone on a training scheme be included?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has made his point. The dismal and consistent way in which the Opposition regard these matters is that they believe that employment training is offered simply to massage the unemployment figures. Unemployment figures have decreased anyway because of the strength of the economy. Employment training gives a real opportunity to the unemployed to get back on the right side of the economic fence, but the Opposition have not yet grasped that.

Sir Cyril Smith: Is the Minister satisfied with the attitude of school leavers to training? Is he aware that in parts of the north and midlands—where I have an intimate knowledge of a certain engineering industry; I stress that it is knowledge of a certain engineering industry, not just of a certain engineering company—there is a terrible shortage of suitable applicants for apprenticeships? Would it not be better for the Government to meet their to talk about the possibility of their being encouraged to carry out their own training schemes? Can the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there is more to life than computers? My information is that school leavers are interested only in entering the computer industry and are not interested in engineering or manufacturing skills.

Mr. Nicholls: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says with which I can agree, although I prefer not to follow him in generalising about the attitudes of school leavers. One of the problems for employers now is that there are increasingly fewer school leavers, because of demographic changes. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the need for employers to be involved in the training of young people. The proposals announced

yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he spoke about the White Paper on training, will ensure that employers are able to play a proper part in training.

16 to 18-year-old Workers

Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to remove barriers to employment facing 16 to 18-year-old workers.

Mr. Fowler: The Employment Bill published on 1 December will remove a mass of outdated restrictions, particularly on the hours that under-18s can work in industry and shops. That will make it easier for employers to take on young people and increase the opportunities open to them.

Mr. Franks: I welcome the greater job opportunities that will arise from greater flexibility, but will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm that the greater opportunities will not diminish the necessary restrictions which protect the health and safety of young people?

Mr. Fowler: I certainly confirm that the aim is to increase employment opportunities and flexibility, but we shall retain all the protections that the Health and Safety Commission has advised are still necessary for health and safety reasons, such as restrictions on working with dangerous machinery, lead and hazardous processes. All those protections will be retained. It is the legislation on working hours that will be tackled.

Mr. Eastham: Surely the relaxation of working conditions for young workers will bring about a deterioration in working conditions, the like of which we have not seen since the last war, since when young workers have not had to work night shifts and extended hours. Is the Secretary of State implying that anything goes under the new legislation, other than health and safety protection?

Mr. Fowler: What I am saying is that the law, self-evidently, needs to be modernised. We issued a consultation document which set that out in detail. We seek, for example, to tackle the present position, whereby if a group of 16 to 18-year-olds work in the same factory, they have to start work at the same time, have their tea break at the same time, eat their lunch at the same time and finish work at the same time.

Mr. Nellist: And they should be given the same wages as other workers.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must calm down. That is an absurd proposition and is recognised as such by young people.

Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one existing barrier to the employment of 16 to 18-year-olds, and other workers, is the continued existence of the pre-entry closed shop? Is he aware, for example, that my local council, Kirklees, continues to hoodwink new employees into joining a trade union by putting compulsory trade union membership into their contracts of employment, despite the fact that that closed shop


would not stand up in a court of law? Does he agree that that sort of abuse makes it inevitable that he will have to outlaw the pre-entry closed shop?

Mr. Fowler: It is exactly for reasons of that kind that, in the White Paper published yesterday, I made it clear that the Government are to review the operation of the pre-entry closed shop. Clearly, by definition, the pre-entry closed shop acts as a barrier to employment. We shall review it and act on that review.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State explain why this country, unlike any other Western European country, including our major competitors, France and West Germany, wants to abolish protection for young workers? Is it not the case that this Government's ideology and dogma demand that we have a part-time, low-paid, low-trained young work force? Is that the Government's ambition, and is that why they are introducing such measures?

Mr. Fowler: The aim is to try to get young people the job opportunities which I think they want. We are not in any sense abolishing protection for young people. What we are relaxing are the hours of work. I have made it clear that we are retaining all the protection of the Health and Safety Commission and the restrictions, for example, on 16 to 18-year-olds working in gambling, gaming, pubs and such places. Those restrictions have been retained. What we are doing is modernising the law.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major barrier to the employment of young people is the lack of skills among them? What words does he have for Warrington borough council, which is refusing to participate in employment training because of Left-wing ideology?

Mr. Fowler: That is utterly deplorable. The fact is that at the moment we have about 700,000 vacancies in the economy. Councils which refuse to co-operate with employment training should urgently reconsider their position, because those whom they are affecting are unemployed. I think that the action they are taking is immoral.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many parliamentary constituencies unemployment fell by 40 per cent. or more between August 1984 and August 1988.

Mr. Nicholls: Between August 1984 and August 1988 unemployment fell by 40 per cent. or more in 136 parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain.
I shall arrange for details of these constituencies to be placed in the Official Report.

Mr. Rooker: The Minister can save himself the time and trouble, because those figures are already there. They show that, of those 136 constituencies, 130 are constituencies of hon. Members who represent the Conservative party, and six—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rooker: —and six are the constituencies of hon. Members representing the Labour party. When will the constituents of my hon. Friends benefit from what has

been the obvious targeting of Government grants, Government decisions, investment and planning appeals and applications, which have clearly brought about such a disproportionate, unfair fall in unemployment between the constituencies of the two major parties in this House? Clearly that has not happened by accident. We want a fair share.

Mr. Nicholls: Unlike so many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of credit on this side of the House for the usual quality of his contributions. I am afraid that on this occasion he has let himself down sadly. The hon. Gentleman knows that the only targeting that has been done on this matter—I acknowledge it at once—is the extremely skilful way in which the hon. Gentleman has targeted his question. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the reduction in the unemployed, expressed as a percentage of itself. Obviously, if unemployment is low, any reduction in the number of unemployed people would have a correspondingly greater effect in percentage terms. If he considers the fall in unemployment over the past five years and looks at the figures that have been produced in The Independent, he will find that, on average, for each Labour constituency the reduction was 1,516, compared with 1,304 on average for each Conservative constituency.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in my constituency of Castle Point the reduction of unemployment in the period mentioned in the question was 52·5 per cent. and that that is clearly a reflection of growing confidence under this Government among employers and of good practices by local authorities?

Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend makes the point exactly. Many ingredients underpin these figures, but if an area has an extrmely supportive Member of Parliament, a local ethic that praises employment and a local authority that supports employment training measures, it is more likely to do better than those that do not. Even on the basis that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) chooses to present his question, there are many Labour constituencies that also have figures of which he would approve.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that many of the firms that have been set up in constituencies in the north-west, certainly in the Workington constituency, are labour-intensive only because of cuts in regional support? Is it not further true that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer finally decides to go into reverse gear and pursue a policy of credit-restriction-induced deflation of the economy, we shall then really be able to measure how successful the Government have been in relation to small firms in areas such as my own?

Mr. Nicholls: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has a fine line in economic illiteracy, but it will not do. Even on the basis on which his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) chooses to compile the figures, we find that in Workington the rate of unemployment has been reduced by 40·1 per cent.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Rochester-on-Medway city council has held the rate steady for 12 years, except for two years, when it


reduced it, that unemployment has fallen dramatically and that that is a direct consequence of good housekeeping by a Conservative Administration?

Mr. Nicholls: Again, my hon. Friend has made the point exactly. In his area, employers who are obviously trying to improve their businesses, or employers who are thinking of moving into the area, will find that there is a benign climate. It is a great pity that such a climate is not found more commonly in constituencies that are represented by Opposition Members.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister not aware that the unemployment that the Tories created in the early 1980s led to the loss of 2 million full-time jobs, whereas the reduction in unemployment since 1986 has involved almost exclusively part-time jobs? Will he confirm the Government's figures, that in the last two and a half years the number of full-time jobs has risen by only 56,000? Does


Parliamentary constituencies with a fall in unemployment of more than 40 per cent. between August 1984 and August 1988



Unemployed claimants




Parliamentary constituencies
August 1984
August 1988
Change
Percentage change


Wantage
2,391
949
-1,442
-60·3


Horsham
2,180
881
-1,299
-59·6


Henley
2,020
819
-1,201
-59·5


Corby
5,914
2,444
-3,470
-58·7


Basingstoke
3,250
1,369
-1,881
-57·9


Tunbridge Wells
2,519
1,069
-1,450
-57·6


Witney
2,646
1,126
-1,520
-57·5


North West Hampshire
2,361
1,046
-1,315
-55·7


Reading West
3,334
1,496
-1,838
-55·1


North West Surrey
2,356
1,058
-1,298
-55·1


Aylesbury
2,741
1,248
-1,493
-54·5


Reigate
2,023
927
-1,096
-54·2


Chertsey and Walton
2,099
963
-1,136
-54·1


Mole Valley
1,726
796
-930
-53·9


West Hertfordshire
3,594
1,670
-1,924
-53·5


Stevenage
4,059
1,896
-2,163
-53·3


Saffron Walden
2,382
1,116
-1,266
-53·2


Gillingham
5,479
2,568
-2,911
-53·1


Mid Sussex
1,991
941
-1,050
-52·7


Newbury
2,650
1,257
-1,393
-52·6


Castle Point
3,430
1,630
-1,800
-52·5


Wealden
1,907
908
-999
-52·4


South West Bedfordshire
3,766
1,795
-1,971
-52·3


Medway
5,264
2,517
-2,747
-52·2


Guildford
2,097
1,008
-1,089
-51·9


Spelthorne
2,328
1,121
-1,207
-51·9


Brentwood and Ongar
2,438
1,175
-1,263
-51·8


Braintree
3,283
1,583
-1,700
-51·8


South West Surrey
1,661
804
-857
-51·6


Crawley
2,485
1,207
-1,278
-51·4


Chichester
2,278
1,107
-1,171
-51·4


Reading East
3,923
1,908
-2,015
-51·4


East Surrey
1,625
791
-834
-51·3


Maidstone
3,525
1,731
-1,794
-50·9


Tonbridge and Malling
2,678
1,318
-1,360
-50·8


Mid Kent
4,837
2,391
-2,446
-50·6


Esher
1,563
774
-789
-50·5


Chesham and Amersham
1,742
868
-874
-50·2


Rochford
2,828
1,413
-1,415
-50·0


Billericay
3,882
1,941
-1,941
-50·0


Oxford West and Abingdon
3,152
1,580
-1,572
-49·9


North Hertfordshire
3,573
1,792
-1,781
-49·9


Milton Keynes
6,750
3,423
-3,327
-49·3


Southend West
3,590
1,823
-1,767
-49·2


South West Hertfordshire
2,530
1,285
-1,245
49·2


Woking
2,387
1,213
-1,174
-49·2


Windsor and Maidenhead
2,612
1,330
-1,282
-49·1


Welwyn Hatfield
3,123
1,595
-1,528
-48·9


Banbury
3,263
1,668
-1,595
-48·9


Sevenoaks
2,416
1,241
-1,175
-48·6


Basildon
6,712
3,453
-3,259
-48·6


Wokingham
1,970
1,025
-945
48·0



that not show that the Government's much-trumpeted reduction in unemployment is as unbalanced as it is deceitful?

Mr. Nicholls: No, it does not. It shows that the hon. Gentleman is fixed on the proposition that if he repeats nonsense often enough it becomes the truth. The fall in unemployment during the last 12 months has amounted to 504,000. It is now running at 7·7 per cent. and it has been down for 27 months running. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at international comparisons he will find— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not have asked for it, but he is going to get it. In terms of international comparisons, this country is doing extremely well. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is so locked into the past that he thinks the only reputable job is one that is absolutely full time. Patterns of employment in this day and age are far more varied than that.
Following are the details:

Unemployed claimants




Parliamentary constituencies
August 1984
August 1988
Change
Percentage change


Harlow
4,426
2,304
-2,122
-47·9


East Berkshire
3,196
1,666
-1,530
-47·9


South Colchester and Maldon
4,240
2,214
-2,026
-47·8


Hornchurch
3,047
1,592
-1,455
-47·8


Aldershot
2,971
1,571
-1,400
-47·1


Hertford and Stortford
2,093
1,111
-982
-46·9


Christchurch
2,254
1,197
-1,057
-46·9


Kettering
3,308
1,759
-1,549
-46·8


Arundel
2,786
1,488
-1,298
-46·6


Dagenham
4,311
2,305
-2,006
-46·5


Buckingham
2,561
1,375
-1,186
-46·3


Surbiton
1,554
840
-714
-46·0


Wycombe
2,932
1,586
-1,346
-45·9


Mid Norfolk
2,989
1,622
-1,367
-45·7


Ruislip-Norwood
1,779
966
-813
-45·7


Poole
3,702
2,011
-1,691
-45·7


Northampton North
4,789
2,609
-2,180
-45·5


South East Cambridgeshire
1,892
1,032
-860
-45·5


Harborough
2,566
1,404
-1,162
-45·3


West Gloucestershire
4,609
2,531
-2,078
-45·1


Slough
4,629
2,544
-2,085
-45·0


North Dorset
2,181
1,199
-982
-45·0


North Bedfordshire
4,573
2,515
-2,058
-45·0


Huntingdon
3,511
1,938
-1,573
-44·8


Southend East
4,675
2,586
-2,089
-44·7


Upminster
3,029
1,678
-1,351
-44·6


Hastings and Rye
4,259
2,361
-1,898
-44·6


St. Albans
2,462
1,368
-1,094
-44·4


Stratford-on-Avon
3,314
1,844
-1,470
-44·4


Mid Bedfordshire
2,756
1,536
-1,220
-44·3


Ludlow
3,722
2,076
-1,646
-44·2


Bosworth
3,557
1,987
-1,570
-44·1


South West Cambridgeshire
2,500
1,397
-1,103
-44·1


Beaconsfield
1,700
951
-749
-44·1


Cirencester and Tewkesbury
2,976
1,666
-1,310
-44·0


Wimbledon
2,894
1,622
-1,272
-44·0


Bournemouth East
4,951
2,784
-2,167
-43·8


Epsom and Ewell
1,901
1,071
-830
-43·7


South Suffolk
3,281
1,850
-1,431
-43·6


Bournemouth West
3,896
2,197
-1,699
-43·6


Stamford and Spalding
3,325
1,878
-1,447
-43·5


Oxford East
4,025
2,282
-1,743
-43·3


Blaby
2,915
1,653
-1,262
-43·3


North Colchester
4,129
2,345
-1,784
-43·2


Uxbridge
2,625
1,494
-1,131
-43·1


Leominster
3,192
1,817
-1,375
-43·1


Thurrock
5,822
3,343
-2,479
-42·6


Carshalton and Wallington
2,899
1,665
-1,234
-42·6


The City of London and West
5,423
3,120
-2,303
-42·5


Worcester
5,030
2,894
-2,136
-42·5


Wellingborough
4,111
2,369
-1,742
-42·4


Worthing
2,539
1,469
-1,070
-42·1


Hertsmere
2,595
1,502
-1,093
-42·1


Croydon Central
3,609
2,091
-1,518
-42·1


Devizes
3,310
1,921
-1,389
-42·0


Rutland and Melton
3,473
2,016
-1,457
-42·0


Central Suffolk
3,097
1,798
-1,299
-41·9


Salisbury
3,208
1,865
-1,343
-41·9


Cambridge
3,554
2,067
-1,487
-41·8


Winchester
2,057
1,197
-860
-41·8


Daventry
2,713
1,579
-1,134
-41·8


Sutton and Cheam
2,029
1,183
-846
-41·7


Aberavon
4,762
2,780
-1,982
-41·6


Cheadle
2,921
1,707
-1,214
-41·6


Romford
2,776
1,623
-1,153
-41·5


Shoreham
2,053
1,202
-851
-41·5


Suffolk Coastal
2,452
1,437
-1,015
-41·4


Staffordshire Moorlands
3,608
2,116
-1,492
-41·4


South West Norfolk
3,844
2,259
-1,585
-41·2


Ashford
3,396
1,996
-1,400
-41·2


Chelmsford
3,035
1,786
-1,249
-41·2


North Luton
4,332
2,558
-1,774
-41·0


Watford
3,235
1,911
-1,324
-40·9


Croydon South
2,023
1,197
-826
-40·8


Congleton
3,322
1,968
-1,354
-40·8


Stroud
3,743
2,223
-1,520
-40·6

Unemployed claimants




Parliamentary constituencies
August 1984
August 1988
Change
Percentage change


Havant
4,918
2,928
-1,990
-40·5


Bexhill and Battle
1,774
1,057
-717
-40·4


The Wrekin
9,589
5,724
-3,865
-40·3


Gravesham
4,984
2,976
-2,008
-40·3


Wyre Forest
5,135
3,067
-2,068
-40·3


Alyn and Deeside
4,694
2,811
-1,883
-40·1


East Hampshire
2,419
1,449
-970
-40·1


Bishop Auckland
7,166
4,299
-2,867
-40·0

Employment Service

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the development of the employment service.

Mr. Fowler: In the six months since April the employment service placed over 75,000 unemployed people in jobs, including over 120,000 long-term unemployed. It has also introduced new procedures, such as more effective interviews with those making new claims for benefit. Since last October, when we established the employment service, unemployment has fallen by 504,000 overall, with particularly steep falls in long-term unemployment.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for his wonderful reply. I hope that he will express the House's appreciation of the work done by civil servants in the Department. I wonder whether he is progressing well with obtaining agency status for the employment service? Are there plans for the re-amalgamation of the benefit service and the employment service, as is happening in Weymouth at the moment? Are there also plans to amalgamate the Department of Social Security offices and possibly, at long last, to transfer many of these services to the private sector?

Mr. Fowler: The plan on which we are working is aimed at improving even further the management effectiveness of the employment service. To that effect, we are considering creating one of the new agencies.

Mr. Nellist: How will the development of the employment service be aided by the attacks on the rights of 16 to 18-year-old workers? Having seen the abolition of the wages councils two years ago reduce the level of wages for that group, but not produce the 50,000 to 100,000 new jobs that the Government promised in July 1985, is not the single purpose of the provisions announced by the Secretary of State to increase the exploitation of school leavers, which will inevitably lead to an increase in injuries and deaths? If the Secretary of State is really concerned-[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking many questions at great length.

Mr. Nellist: Why has the Secretary of State never signed the Employment of Children Act 1973?

Mr. Fowler: The purpose of our policies and of what we announced yesterday is to increase the employment prospects of young people. We want to reduce unemployment. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that between 1986 and

this year unemployment for 16 to 19-year-olds has fallen by no less than 62 per cent. That is the record of the Government.

Enterprise Allowance Scheme

Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently participating in the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: At the end of October, 91,856 people were participating on the enterprise allowance scheme.

Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 400 people on the scheme in Bury and that that is a tribute to their initiative and enterprise and to the skills of those who are advising them, to whom we should pay tribute? How many people are on the scheme throughout the north-west, and what is the success rate for the new businesses so created?

Mr. Cope: About 14,000 people are on the enterprise allowance scheme in the north-west region. The success rate can be measured in terms of jobs. For every 100 people who start a business on the enterprise allowance scheme, about 120 people are working for those firms three years later.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that many new enterprises will expect to make a loss not only during their first year but may make a loss well into their second year? In those circumstances, is there not a good case for enterprise allowance to be allowable at say 50 per cent. of the first year rate, so as to safeguard against that and to help people setting up enterprises who fear such circumstances?

Mr. Cope: We can certainly consider that suggestion. However, the enterprise allowance is intended, not to subsidise new firms against losses but to replace the benefit of those who are on unemployment benefit when they start the business.

Training

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the employment training scheme.

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of The transport and General Workers Union to discuss the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: I have not received any such request but if the recent decision by the Trades Union Congress genera] council leads to further positive co-operation by individual trade unions, that is to be welcomed.

Mr. Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the recent letter by the president of the Confederation of British Industry, published in the Financial Times, which says that skill shortages cause high wages and inflation? Will he press that upon the general secretary of the TUC and ensure that he supports employment training, which will make Britain more competitive, bring down inflation and reduce skill shortages?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. Of course, the employment training programme is taking place in the context of a very high number of vacancies in the economy. That is why we want the support of local authorities and trade unions for that programme, which can bring down unemployment further.

Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union is the most destructive, irresponsible and Luddite general secretary that it has had the misfortune to have for many decades? What advice can my right hon. Friend give as to how the Transport and General Workers Union can make a more positive contribution to solving the current skill shortage, which is resulting in bricklayers earning £175 a day in docklands?

Mr. Fowler: I very much hope that the Transport and General Workers Union will change its views on the employment training programme. Up to now, on Dundee and on employment training, the Transport and General Workers Union has turned its back on the interests of unemployed people in Britain. The most deplorable thing is that that has never been condemned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Iceland. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Bradley: In the light of the evidence published today by Barnardo's that children leaving local authority care face abject poverty because of the cuts in their benefits, what advice would the Prime Minister give to a 16-year-old living in my constituency who is trying to survive independently on less than £20 a week? In this season of good will, will the Prime Minister support the introduction of a special benefit allowance for teenagers leaving local authority care, as recommended by Barnardo's?

The Prime Minister: We have only just received the report and the Secretary of State for Social Security will study it carefully. Ministers have given assurances that the reformed benefit will be monitored in detail. This

monitoring will include all income support recipients, including the young people covered by the report. Once that exercise has been completed we shall consider what, if anything, needs to be done. About 80 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds live with a family and they will have seen a real increase in their benefit, so we are talking about a small minority of young people who are living independently. It must be emphasised that they receive maximum help with rent and rates.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the accidental discharge of 100 tonnes of crude oil into Milford Haven in my constituency has seriously polluted the area? Will she join me in congratulating the staff of local agencies and volunteers who have been tackling the disaster? Will she arrange for the Department of Transport to investigate the matter?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the harbour authority, Texaco and the local authorities are working together effectively to deal with the problem. The situation is being closely monitored by the Department of Transport and an officer of that Department's marine pollution control unit is at the Haven today, carrying out an on-site survey. The district inspector of fisheries is also keeping a close watch on the effect on fisheries, particularly fish farms. I gladly join my hon. Friend in thanking the staff of local agencies and the volunteers for tackling this disaster.

Mr. Kinnock: On another subject affecting young people, has the Prime Minister seen the official figures showing that the Government have allowed teacher shortages of 20 per cent. in mathematics, 17 per cent. in physics and 23 per cent. in technology, with worse to come in future? Does she think that this is the way to prepare Britain's young people for the economic and social challenges of the 1990s?

The Prime Minister: We shall have enough secondary teachers overall, but we shall need more teachers in some subjects, including technology, science subjects and modern languages and fewer in some other subjects. The Government plan to build on our successful campaign to recruit teachers in the shortage subjects. They can do that because of the change of structure in teachers' pay to ensure that schools have the teachers that they need to deliver the national curriculum.

Mr. Kinnock: As it is obvious, even from the Department of Education and Science figures, that shortages will remain, and will intensify in the 1990s, is it not clear that, rather than taking effective action to make up shortages, the Government are trying to shift the curriculum so that fewer young people will have the opportunity to study science? Would the Prime Minister put up with that for her own children?

The Prime Minister: Because of the changing structure of teachers' pay, we are able to offer teachers in shortage subjects more than we would otherwise have done. We are way ahead with the problem. On the science curriculum, it is possible that children can take the double curriculum, or we have been asked if they could take the single one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is looking at that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the devastation caused to the livelihoods of many people in the poultry industry by the reckless and uninformed


statement by a junior Minister with an uncontrollable tongue and an insatiable desire for self-advertisement? As my right hon. Friend is responsible for the composition of her Government, what action does she intend to take about it?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but the answer to his question is no, Sir. I read very carefully the statements by the chief medical officer, first, on 21 November and, secondly, on 5 December. Having read them carefully, I decided to have scrambled egg on toast for lunch, and I enjoyed it.

Ms. Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Walley: In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister find time to meet the nurses who have come to lobby Parliament today and who are concerned about the long-term future of the National Health Service? Does she agree that nurses are being downgraded? Will she take the initiative to comply with their request for binding independent arbitration within the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: No. It is under the Labour Government that nurses were downgraded, and downgraded very much indeed. They were not merely downgraded, but their pay was severely cut. It is under this Government that they have been upgraded, and it is under this Government that they have had a 46 per cent. increase in real pay, due to the excellent record of the Royal College of Nursing in always putting the patient first.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her comment in the House on 1 November that we do not have the same need for a Channel tunnel fast rail link will bring much comfort to many thousands of Kentish men and women who oppose the four options as proposed by British Rail? If my right hon. Friend is so against it, and so am I, why are we proceeding with that ghastly and unnecessary scheme?

The Prime Minister: Those comments caused joy in some areas and less joy in others. British Rail is considering taking a long-term view, but there are no immediate plans for that development.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that Torbay council is presently engaged in selling off its entire housing stock, despite a petition signed by more than half its tenants, objecting to the plan and calling on the House to ask the Secretary of State not to allow the sales to go ahead? Will she offer any advice and comfort to those tenants to the effect that their wishes will be respected?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that proposal is at present before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will consider all matters before making a decision.

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Baldry: Will not the reeds rustle at Runnymede if we as a House do not take every action to uphold the rule of law and defeat terrorism? To that end, will my hon. Friend ensure that Hansard is more widely available so that the whole nation can see the names of those Members who last night voted against the declaration against terrorism and who tonight may vote against the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill? By their actions do they not unwittingly assist the IRA and give comfort to terrorists?

The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's quotation from Kipling and I agree with him that people will believe that everyone is serious about fighting terrorism only when the Opposition Benches join this side in voting for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Prime Minister accept that her reply to the question about the Barnardo report is hypocritical and unconvincing? Far from being a novelty of information to her, the precise consequences wrapped up in that report were inevitable as a result of the decision by her Government to withdraw all benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds. Does she accept that the "guarantee" of YTS places, on which the withdrawal of all benefits to 16 and 17-year olds was based, was and is a lie? [Interruption.] I am quoting from the press release issued by the Department of Employment, which used the word "guarantee". On the basis of that lie in the Department of Employment press release, every penny of legal income has been removed from at least 20,000 young people. Does the Prime Minister accept personal, moral responsibility for the fate of those 20,000 youngsters?

The Prime Minister: The YTS guarantee is being met [Interruption.] There are many more YTS places than young people applying for them in all regions. On 31 October, the latest figure available, there were 120,000 unfilled YTS places. Those not capable of YTS are entitled to income support at all times. Others guaranteed an offer of a YTS place if living away from parents after leaving care will be entitled to income support for a short period while awaiting a YTS offer. If living in board-and-lodging accommodation or a hostel they will normally be entitled to income support while on YTS.

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Knapman: In the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider a recent report that appeared in Pravda and was reprinted this morning in the Financial Times, which states that over the past nine years my right hon. Friend has lifted the country out of its depressed state, privatised ailing industries and sacked incompetent people? Does she agree that the journalists of Pravda are more likely to grasp reality than Members of the Opposition parties in this House?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All round the world Socialists are abandoning their dogma because they know that it does not work and brings neither prosperity nor dignity. The only Socialist party that is to the far Left of the Communist party is the one that sits opposite.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Prime Minister today had an opportunity to look at the opinion polls in Scotland and to consider their implications? Against that background, can she tell us at what stage, either in the percentage recorded in opinion polls, votes cast at a general election or seats lost at a general election, she will decide that she has no legitimacy whatever to implement her policies in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I note, as I have noted before, that the people of Scotland are doing far better under this Government than under any previous Government and we shall continue with the same policies. I hope that most of us in the House still believe in the United Kingdom, and it is the majority of the United Kingdom that forms the Government. I also point out, as I have done before, that there have been times when the Labour party has not had a majority in England, but because it has in the United Kingdom we have abided by that result.

Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note the Western Morning News report of yesterday that the Royal College of Nursing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—is now recruiting at five times its normal membership rate and it is not in the lobby today? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects the RCN's regrading policy of using the appeals procedure in cases of dispute rather than working to grade. which can harm patient care?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the appeals procedure is there should there be any dispute, and it should be used. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we owe much to the Royal College of Nursing. It was the devotion of its members to patients and the fact that they have never gone on strike that led us to set up a pay review body. It is due to the nurses' devotion that they now have a bigger pay award than they have ever had before. I am delighted to hear that the Royal College of Nursing is fast recruiting people from other unions.

European Council (Rhodes)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Rhodes on 2-3 December, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The Council's detailed conclusions and the separate statements which it issued have been placed in the Library of the House.
First, the Council took note of the Commission's progress report on the single market, which is due to be completed by 1992. Approximately half of the measures required are now agreed. The priorities for the next stage will include banking and financial services and public procurement, which are of particular interest to the United Kingdom.
I made clear that we do not regard Community decisions on tax rates as necessary to complete the single market. There is, I think, a growing recognition of the bureaucratic and other difficulties which the Commission's proposals on indirect taxation raise.
As regards what is called the social dimension, it is also widely recognised that the best way to meet social needs and to advance the living standards of all the people is through the extra economic growth which the single market will generate.
The second main subject was the environment. The Council issued a declaration which draws attention in particular to the need for international action to deal with damage to the ozone layer and with the greenhouse effect. The United Kingdom is of course convening a conference in London in March on the depletion of the ozone layer.
Thirdly, we discussed the Community's role in the world. The declaration that we issued helpfully underlines that the Community will not close in on itself after 1992 but will keep open its markets and encourage others to do likewise. That is a good message for the mid-term meeting of the GATT Uruguay round which is taking place in Montreal.
In political co-operation we discussed the middle east and confirmed the cautious welcome which Foreign Ministers had given in their statements of 21 and 30 November to the outcome of the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers. It would not be right to go further than that until the PLO has unequivocally recognised Israel's right to a secure existence and renounced violence.
I also used the opportunity of bilateral meetings with the Prime Ministers of Belgium and the Republic of Ireland to make clear the extent to which people in Britain felt let down by the Belgian Government's treatment of our recent extradition request and the delay by the Irish authorities in backing our warrants.
In its conclusions, the European Council recognised the need for co-operation between Governments to combat terrorism, and we are thankful for the co-operation that we receive from most of them.
I am grateful to the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou, for chairing the Council despite his ill-health. I am sure that the House will wish him a full recovery.
The Council was an occasion for Heads of Government to take stock of European Community and wider world issues. Its principal result was to give fresh impetus to

completion of the single market by 1992. That remains Britain's current priority in the Community. We can therefore be well satisfied with the outcome.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for her statement. It is obvious to everyone that the formal proceedings of the European Council in Rhodes made it something of a "wait and see" summit. However, will the Prime Minister confirm that there will not be any concessions on the VAT zero rating of food and other essentials, or on British border controls to combat terrorism and crime? Will the right hon. Lady resist any proposals that would put British producers at a disadvantage in securing public procurement orders?
In anticipation of the recommendations of the Delors committee on economic and monetary union—which will report to the next summit, the Madrid summit—what measures will the Prime Minister propose to inhibit destabilising short-term capital movements in the single market? On that subject, will she be taking the advice of her right hon. Friend the Chancellor or that of Sir Alan Walters?
For reasons that will be obvious to the House, the European Council summit last weekend will be remembered not so much as the Rhodes summit but as the Ryan summit. It appears clear to many of us that the Belgian Cabinet should have accepted the counsel of Belgian judges and should have allowed the extradition of Mr. Ryan to Britain. However, it is also clear that, if the confusion began with the political evasion by the Belgian Cabinet, it was turned into chaos last week by the prejudicial tantrums of the British Prime Minister.
To ensure that there is no hiding place for suspected terrorists in these isles, will the Prime Minister take what opportunities still exist for bringing the suspect, Patrick Ryan, to face charges? Will the Government use the proven instrument of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act to take action on the allegations of handling explosives and unauthorised possession of explosives? Will the right hon. Lady, as reported in column 575 of Hansard for 29 November, now takes her own advice, and back up her speeches and statements with "appropriate deeds" instead of indulging in damaging histrionics?

The Prime Minister: A value added tax or any other tax measure which the Community may attempt to impose cannot be adopted except by unanimous vote of all the members. We have made our position clear both on that and on zero rating on several occasions, and I confirm what has been said previously.
We have made it clear that, until there are other effective ways of stopping terrorists, of apprehending criminals, of dealing with those carrying drugs and of dealing with immigrants, some border controls simply must remain. Quite a number of countries are anxious to get rid of them, which one understands. They would like people to be able to travel from one side of Europe to another. However, it is vital that we have effective measures for those groups of people whom I have identified. So far there is no effective alternative. In some countries, people must carry identity cards and produce them when asked on any occasion. That is not the case throughout the Community, and it would give offence to a number of people if it were.
Public procurement orders are very much at the top of the agenda, because we feel that we do not get a fair whack


of business when applying for procurement in other countries, which is why we are anxious to have the appropriate directives.
I shall wait until the Delors committee reports, but, on the question of what the right hon. Gentleman calls destabilising short-term capital movements, I point out that there is already freedom of capital movement between countries such as the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Holland, Denmark and Luxembourg, and that has not proved to be destabilising for any of us, as we are always telling those who, in fact, want to introduce equal tax on capital movements. That is the view which we shall continue to take.
The facts about Belgium spoke for themselves. That was the trouble, the facts did speak for themselves. When we made those facts perfectly clear, I believe that most people who really believe in fighting terrorism were on our side.
We were asking the Republic of Ireland to back the warrants which were sent over so that Ryan was taken into custody while the application for extradition—which takes much longer—was fully and properly considered.
With regard to the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, which enables people to have extra-territorial jurisdiction, I am advised that only two of the four charges against Ryan could be heard under that Act. Therefore, it does not seem very relevant.

Sir Ian Gilmour: During her visit to Washington, my right hon. Friend was reported to have urged the American Government to build on the Palestine National Council's statement. Her remarks this afternoon seem, instead, to suggest that she wants further action from Mr. Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Will my right hon. Friend clarify the Government's attitude?

The Prime Minister: While in Washington I said, having looked carefully at the comuniqué but not having done all the detailed work that I have since carried out, that it seemed to me that what the PLO had said about United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 was a distinct move forward and that we should encourage such moves forward. My right hon. Friend knows that many other parts of the communiqué are very much less welcome and which we could not possibly accept.
As for dealing with the PLO in this country, we have always made it clear that we believe that three conditions should be satisfied before senior Ministers discuss matters with that organisation. One concerns United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, the second is that the PLO should recognise Israel's right to exist, and the third is that it should renounce violence. Those conditions were laid down some years ago, and we have not departed from them.

Mr. David Steel: There will be some concern at the Prime Minister's choice of phrase in her statement about
what is called the social dimension
although we are not surprised at that coming from somebody who does not believe that there is any such thing as society. Does she agree that the European Community accepts that the social dimension of the Community is important and that not all the member states share her belief in the total beneficence of market forces? Will she accept that people outside the south-east

of England will be looking to her to bat for Britain, especially in Scotland, and to see that we get a reasonable share of the regional and social funds of the Community?

The Prime Minister: I did refer to
what is called the social dimension",
but it is called by many, many strange names, including social space.

Mr. George Foulkes: What does the Prime Minister call it?

The Prime Minister: Social affairs, which is what we would normally call it in this country. Under the heading come such things as employment and training and measures to help with unemployment. Unemployment is rapidly going down in this country, particularly among the long-term unemployed. Some come under the heading of worker participation. We say that the best worker participation is wider share ownership.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this has been an extremely successful summit—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question of the Prime Minister, not of others below the Gangway.

Mr. Dykes: The summit has been a success, notwithstanding that, unfortunately, it had to deal with extraneous matters. How confident is my right hon. Friend about the 285 Commission measures for the single market? How many will be agreed at the end of the Spanish presidency in a year's time, and how many by 1992?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, we have got on well with them so far, but there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that as we come closer to 1992 the more difficult ones will come. They are difficult because there are genuine disagreements and some of the measures will undoubtedly not be passed. That is exactly what we would wish. We do not accept that, for example, the Commission needs to impose tax measures on people merely to complete the single market. The single market can be completed without that.

Mr. Peter Shore: The House will welcome what the Prime Minister said about not harmonising indirect taxes and also what she had to say about maintaining border controls against terrorists, drug smugglers and the like. If that is the British Government's attitude, and if it was properly communicated at Rhodes, as I am sure it was, why is it that the Rhodes communiqué, the presidential communiqué, speaks of irreversible progress towards a single European internal market without frontiers by 1992?

The Prime Minister: I think that the progress that we have achieved makes the single market irreversible [Interruption.] It is not a phrase that I like, but it was used in the Single European Act that passed through this House.
We need border controls. It is not a Community without borders, and nor can it possibly be. We need to reduce the number of controls on the borders for travellers and for those delivering goods, but there must still be controls. Our international border—apart from the Republic of Ireland—is the same as our internal border.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: After my right hon. Friend's justified anger and indignation about the Ryan case, did she calmly reflect that it was not an isolated case, but one that reflected the fundamental differences of view and approach between the people of the United Kindom and the people of the Republic of Ireland on the issue of Northern Ireland? Did she not calmly go on to reflect that no useful purpose would be achieved by the continuation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

The Prime Minister: It is clear that the present arrangements for extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are not working well and that attention must be given to that. In the case in question, we were well aware that, all of a sudden, the Republic of Ireland had Mr. Ryan returned to it without warning. We were asking not for immediate extradition, but for a warrant for his arrest to be put into effect so that a due and proper decision could be taken on extradition in the usual way.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is in place and we are currently reviewing the way in which it works. We shall consider the extradition aspect and consult with the relevant parties. I believe that the agreement should continue.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that during the discussions she adhered to her attitude to the Europe of the future as set out in her Bruges speech, which had widespread support throughout the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I confirm my support for the attitudes and approaches set out in the Bruges speech, which are supported by many other people, including many on the mainland of Europe.

Mr. David Curry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the declaration renouncing protectionism is extremely important and that it comes at an opportune moment given the current GATT talks in Montreal? Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at Rhodes to point out that the Community has an excellent chance during those talks to translate its fine words into positive action?

The Prime Minister: Yes. In view of the apprehension of many countries outside the Community about the effect of 1992, we thought it vital to make it clear that, although we were taking away some of the internal controls on movement and trade, we were not putting up barriers around the Community. The original purpose of the treaty of Rome was to take away some of the internal barriers to trade as an example to others to do the same. I agree that the GATT talks present a great opportunity, and I hope that they will make progress. However, we must still tackle the fundamental agricultural problems.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Are there not two interpretations of the single internal market? The first, which the Prime Minister favours, is little more than a Customs union and the second, which is favoured by others, is political and economic union and the construction of detailed legislation to give flat-field competition throughout the EEC whenever there is any commercial activity. Is it not true that the prerogative for such legislation lies entirely with the Commission, not with

Ministers? Is it not also true that any decision on whether it is permissible under the treaty of Rome and, if so, whether it is subject to majority decision will be made by the European Court?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to know that there are certain measures, of which taxation is one and immigration another, on which unanimous decisions are required. So we are particularly protective about those. Others are done by majority decision, and that is in the interests of this country, because some of the things that we want to do would otherwise be blocked by a few other members in the Community.
We have two interests: we need unanimity in some matters; in others, we want majority voting. The Commission does not always make it clear that the measures that come before the national Parliaments must be scrutinised by those Parliaments. We should make that abundantly clear to all our industries that have a particular interest in any directive that may come forward.

Sir Peter Hordern: With regard to co-operation between the police and the security forces of different European Community countries on terrorism, drugs and fraud, would it not be a good idea if there were a European Community bureau of investigation within which all the efforts to combat terrorism and other offences could be closely co-ordinated? Has that been considered? Might it be considered in future?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Home Office Ministers meet regularly, and I think they are steadily working towards much closer co-operation between police forces—and between Ministers. I am not quite certain that what my hon. Friend wants would necessarily be the right solution, but I am certain that there is increasing co-operation. In the Belgian case, there was excellent co-operation between the police and security forces of both countries. There was no difficulty at that level.

Mr. John Hume: Following the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the events of the past week, particularly the Prime Minister's conversations with the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Ireland, has the right hon. Lady given any further consideration to the question I asked her on 30 June? If she wants to achieve her objective of ensuring that there is no hiding place anywhere in these islands for people who commit horrific crimes—an objective shared by all parties in this House and in the Irish Parliament—that might be better achieved by making greater use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, an Act which is much less emotive and much more efficient and which was brought in by the Government of which the right hon. Lady is a member on the recommendation of an eminent commission of lawyers from both countries. That would also speedily build up the mutual trust that is necessary between both Governments to deal with problems of this nature.

The Prime Minister: Sometimes that Act can be used. It is no substitute for effective proceedings on extradition. In the case that we are now considering, I am advised that only two of the four charges would be applicable under the Act.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Is the Prime Minister aware that she spoke eloquently on behalf of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom when she made her statement at the summit about terrorism and extradition? Do not the Ryan case and other incidents reveal the need for the Government to establish an information unit that could convey to the Common Market countries and other countries the truth about the IRA, which is that its members are out to murder innocent people throughout the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has a point. Too few people realise that all the people in Northern Ireland can vote in a similar way to send hon. Members to this House, and that they all have the same civil liberties. In so far as there is any remaining discrimination, we are attempting to put that right in legislation going through the House this Session. So the people of Northern Ireland have all the apparatus of democracy and it is those who dislike the result of the ballot box who turn to bombing and maiming to achieve what they want. We must get the message across that they must never succeed.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Instead of lecturing the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Ireland, would not the Prime Minister be better employed in devising a way for the Government to persuade the judges to own up to the serious mistakes made in the cases of Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham and, in so doing, restore international confidence in British justice?

The Prime Minister: In no way do I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, nor, I think, would most Conservative Members. I believe in fighting terrorism in every way, including supporting the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

Mr. John Redwood: While welcoming the progress that my right hon. Friend has encouraged in Europe towards an open and competitive market in industrial goods, we still have an agricultural system that results in dear food for the housewife and high tax bills for the taxpayer. Does my right hon. Friend think that the European member states might soon be ready to make a better response to American offers of mutual subsidy reduction in agricultural areas?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will remember, that problem was discussed at the Toronto economic summit. Some of us who were there were anxious to agree with America that we should do more to reduce the subsidy to agriculture. Although the European Community has done a good deal to put its agricultural house in order, it still has more to do. That is still our view, and it is shared by some of the other members of the Community but not by all. The steps that we took recently are working. Surplus stocks are going down fast. In 1987 there were 1 million tonnes of surplus butter and there are now only 158,000 tonnes. There were 700,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder and there are now only 11,000 tonnes. The surpluses in beef, wheat and barley are also down. The policies are beginning to work.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: With reference to the social dimension, does the Prime Minister understand that it is called a social dimension and social space because it is about the inequalities created spatially by a free market system? Will she commit herself

anew to an increased regional policy so that the inequalities that will be created by the single market in 1992 will not disproportionately affect regions in the Community?

The Prime Minister: By a decision last February we increased the structural funds enormously to 52 billion ecu. As I said at Rhodes, over the next three years the amount will be greater in real terms than the whole of the Marshall plan for Europe after the end of the war. My right hon. Friend and I also said at Rhodes that under what is called the social dimension we do not believe in there being two sides to industry; we believe in every earner and owner pulling together for the prosperity of all.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only three weeks ago Mr. Jacques Delors wrote to the economic and social committee in Brussels asking it to give its views and, I think, to support social measures in industry? He also talked about "a people's Europe". Will my right hon. Friend assure industry, at least in Britain, that she will have none of that sort of thing and that we have been down that path before? If that were ever allowed to happen in industry in the EEC, we would cease to create the new jobs that we want and would see employment reducing.

The Prime Minister: The phrase "people's Europe" has been about for quite a long time and it is intended to mean freer travel and easier access across borders. Although it may not be popular in all parts of the House, that is why we have gone to a common-form passport, although passports are still issued in the name of each country. Passports are in a common form to enable people to go through border controls much more easily. I think that it was meant to make Europe more accessible to all citizens of all countries. That is why the phrase developed.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: When the hon. Lady discussed the middle east, did she explain why the Government failed to support Mr. Arafat being allowed to enter the United States of America? Is it not clear that if there is to be any settlement in the middle east the PLO must be fully involved in any discussions? It is vital that the world should know what Mr. Arafat and the PLO are saying. Why did the Government refuse to support the entry of Arafat to the United States?

The Prime Minister: That is not correct, as our ambassador to the United Nations and the communiqué by all the Foreign Ministers of Europe made perfectly clear. We felt that Mr. Arafat should have been permitted to address the United Nations. We protested vigorously about the language of the motion, and if we had been able to amend it in accordance with our own motion we would have supported it. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the communiqué that the Foreign Ministers produced immediately after the United Nations communiqué, he will see that it is couched in moderate language. We all agreed on that communiqué.

Mr. Robert Adley: Nevertheless, it is today reported that my right hon. Friend has intervened to prevent a meeting taking place between the Minister of State, Foreign Office and a representative of the PLO. Can she explain this to the House? If it is the Government's policy to insist that the PLO put up an illuminated sign to ensure that the Israelis have the right to exist behind secure


borders and that they renounce violence, why do we not expect the Israelis to put up an illuminated sign giving the Palestinians the right to a secure existence behind secure borders and the right to live without their children being mown down by Israeli bullets?

The Prime Minister: As I think I explained the last time I answered questions, and again this time, we set down three conditions for senior Ministers to meet anyone from the PLO. First, if whoever was coming from the PLO accepted United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, secondly, if they recognised Israel's right to exist and, thirdly, if they renounced violence the conditions would be fulfilled and we would meet them to talk. Two representatives who came previously could not meet those conditions, so we did not see them at ministerial level. The same has happened this time.
If my hon. Friend reads the Palestinian communiqúe all the way through, he will find some extremely good parts and some parts that hit out hard. For example, in parts Israel is called Fascist and racist. In other parts, the people involved in the uprising in the territories are urged to use every means possible to increase that uprising. My hon. Friend will find grounds for the view that we have taken.
Nevertheless, when I was in Washington I thought it right to say that the attitude taken at the Palestine National Council conference towards the United Nations resolutions was a step forward that we should welcome, which I did.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister clarify her response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) when she said that the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act 1975 could not be used in relation to two of the four charges against Patrick Ryan? Why is it impossible to use the Act in relation to the other two charges, especially as six of the seven cases in which the Act has been used in the Republic have resulted in convictions?

The Prime Minister: Because those two charges are outside the scope of the extraterritorial jurisdiction. They are outside the scope of that Act, which granted extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Was my right hon. Friend able to advise the Taoiseach that those in Britain who wish for closer relations with the Republic, and even wish the Anglo-Irish Agreement well, would find it extremely difficult if he was seen to be attempting to find technical grounds on which to decline to return alleged terrorists to this country to answer for crimes alleged to have been committed in this country?

The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Although there is limited extraterritorial jurisdiction, that is no substitute for effective extradition and no substitute for the warrants sent by one country being backed willingly by those in another.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Prime Minister reconsider her reply in relation to the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, which was passed by the Labour Government following the Sunningdale agreement the previous February? Her explanation about the

two sets of two charges was not clear enough. Why cannot the other two charges be dealt with in Dublin? It is most important that we get the matter clear. If extradition, which is the best way to deal with it, is not possible, would it not be possible to go to Dublin?
I have just been casting my eye over the report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act which the Home Secretary presented to the House in December last year. It is clear from the report that the law of conspiracy is complicated, that proving the offence is difficult and that the law is in a state of uncertainty. That may make it extremely difficult to obtain extradition in the normal sense of the term. It is vital to deal with terrorism. Why do we not consider using the 1975 Act?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to understand that I asked about this and that the legal advice which I received led me to give that answer. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges the legal advice—[Interruption.] I am not being difficult. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges the legal advice, he must ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about it.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall the dismal conclusion of the Attorney-General in the House on Thursday that the refusal of the Belgian Government to agree to the extradition of Mr. Ryan was based not on legal but on political grounds? My right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary are both lawyers. Is there any legal reason, of which either is aware, why the Irish Government should not now agree to the extradition of Mr. Ryan?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I should pronounce on legal grounds. I would only point out that the application for extradition went before the court of first instance in Belgium and the extradition was granted. It went to the court of appeal in Belgium, which confirmed the decision of the court of first instance. We understand that advice was given to the Minister of Justice. It would seem that that advice was similar to the view that the courts had taken. Nevertheless, the Cabinet in Belgium can say yea or nay to a matter of extradition, and it said nay.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: When the Prime Minister is batting for Britain with our European partners, does she ever mention the fact that the only Head of State of a European Community member who has never addressed the European Parliament is the Head of State of our country?

Mr. Tony Banks: She is not the Head of State. She may like to be, but she is not.

Mr. Rooker: May I ask the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman has asked the question.

The Prime Minister: The formal meeting of the European Parliament is in Strasbourg. I should have thought it obvious that the Head of Government does the political work here. Having an executive president is very different from having a monarch.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest long-term difficulties in the development of the European Community is that its


political developments may outpace the economic and social realities that underpin it? In that context, does she agree that the proposal to abolish frontier controls when there are no satisfactory alternatives and the proposal to have worker participation on company boards are two examples from many of that process at work today?

The Prime Minister: Yes. If there is to be a European company statute, we must have the minimum required for such a statute and not try to include matters that may be all right for one country but not for another. Germany would have worker participation. We would have much more share ownership. We want a minimum European company statute. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said about border controls.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: On banking and financial services, will there be a directive for a free market in life assurance? If not, will the Prime Minister press for one? That would give Britain a direct advantage, since life insurance in this country costs only a third of what it costs in Italy and France.

The Prime Minister: We will press for a free market in that. That is why we have made financial services one of the priorities for the next round of directives.

Mr. James Couchman: Further to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), does she agree that the independence of the judiciary is precious to civilised countries and that the overruling of the Belgian judiciary by the Belgian Cabinet was very sad? In that context, will she ignore the weasel words of the leader of the Labour party, many of whose members are likely to oppose the Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill tonight?

The Prime Minister: I hope as many people as possible will support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill being made permanent and support its Second Reading. I can think of nothing more important to show that people are determined in the fight against terrorism.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Having regard to the fact that there is to be another statement after this and the business before the House, I will allow questions to continue for another five minutes before I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: No doubt the Prime Minister realises that working people in this country have far fewer rights at their place of work than most of their counterparts in the Community. Does she not find the term "social Europe" offensive because she is opposed to industrial democracy and wants the present autocratic system in British industry to continue? That was the real reason why she made her silly speech at Bruges. She simply wants an internal market to exploit her free market excesses. She does not want to extend that right to working people.

The Prime Minister: No; that is absolute nonsense. Health and safety comes under the social dimension. We have no fears about the health and safety regulations which Europe will introduce. We are well ahead in our arrangements.
With regard to workers' rights and citizens' rights, which everyone has, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the ordinary trade union member has far more rights now than previously. The ordinary citizen now has a greater chance to become a capitalist than ever before. We should like to extend that to other countries, as would many other member states.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In seeking assistance from our friends and allies in Europe, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reflect on how much easier that task must have been 10 years ago for her predecessor when he could fully rely on her, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, to maintain a fully united front against terrorism? Will she further reflect on the fact that, whatever may take place in this House, the British people are right behind her right across the political spectrum?

The Prime Minister: Judging from the post-bag after the Bruges speech and from the many signs that we have had after returning from Rhodes, I accept what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister said earlier that she had been fighting terrorism in every way. When she met Mr. Haughey, did she refer to k and r—kidnap and ransom—insurance? Is there not a huge hole in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in so far as it does not ban that practice which is a major source of funds for the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: That matter has come up on several previous occasions. We have considered it and, at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, even if we refuse to have it in this country, some of it would go elsewhere. We must have agreement across countries that that is not acceptable. If we could achieve that, that would be very effective. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and am wholly against the taking out of any such insurance.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have no mandate for bringing forward a united states of Europe, for the equalisation of taxes, or for social tinkering? When the British people voted in the referendum many years ago, they supported a free market in Europe. They still support that. The British people support my right hon. Friend as the leader within Europe of that free market principle.

The Prime Minister: I accept that we signed up to a European Economic Community.

Mr. David Winnick: Like my hon. Friends, I am no less opposed to terrorism in Northern Ireland than the Prime Minister. However, on reflection, will the right hon. Lady consider that the manner in which she raised the Ryan case in this House and at the meeting with Mr. Haughey clearly caused the maximum of embarrassment and difficulty to our friends in the Irish Republic and gave a good deal of satisfaction to the IRA and its allies throughout Europe and the United States? Why did the Prime Minister act in a manner more characteristic of her junior Health Minister?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I put the facts and will continue to do that. Bearing in mind that, under the extradition law of the Republic, the provisional warrant which the Irish Attorney-General can


issue is for three days, it is perfectly clear that the Republic considers that the provisional warrant is for three days and that that is sufficient for it to take a decision whether the warrant should be backed or not.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the main reason why she has difficulty in speaking about the problems of the common pound, the common bank and common frontiers is that she made a rod for her own back when she urged her right hon. and hon. Friends to vote on a three-line Whip to carry through the legislation on the single European market? She does not kid Opposition Members when she goes across to those booze-ups like the one in Rhodes and conducts a private brawl to give the impression to the British people that she is really against the Common Market. She does not fool us about that. If she wants to resolve the problem of the common frontiers and all the rest, she should bring forward legislation to repeal the Single European Act and we will give her a chuck on.

The Prime Minister: As is customary from the hon. Gentleman, that was a very confused question. However, if he wants to have a brawl with anyone, he must choose someone who is used to brawling. He had better choose someone his own size.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I welcome the new-found conversion to a green policy and the decision to have a conference in the spring on the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. Will the Prime Minister explain the apparent contradiction between that new-found concern and the fact that the Government have just announced a considerable reduction in the budget for the institute for research into the environment with the ensuing sacking or redundancy of 300 environmental scientists?

The Prime Minister: The amount for research on the environment, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is determined by the advisory board which divides it between the scientific research councils, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Agriculture and Food Research Council. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the amount available in real terms for basic research has increased and was increased further as a result of the Autumn Statement. If we had not had an effective amount for research, the British Antarctic survey would never have discovered the gap in the ozone layer.

Mr. Foulkes: What did they discover?

The Prime Minister: The ozone layer was discovered. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not know that.

Mr. Tony Banks: As most Heads of Government favour the abolition of border controls, would it be legally possible for this country to insist on maintaining border controls if other European countries abolish them?
What was the Prime Minister's opinion about a European federal police force?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it would because, apart from the border with the Republic for which we would have special reason to retain border controls, the external borders of the United Kingdom are international borders as well as internal borders. We must therefore retain our border controls at airports and ports. They will all maintain controls through ports and airports because that is the entry from the outside world. I said earlier that the Trevi Ministers meet frequently and they are moving closer together.
I am not certain whether a federal police force would be advisable. I believe that it would be very difficult to achieve because such a force would have to be answerable specifically to someone, and our present arrangement with co-operation between forces is better.

Mr. Kinnock: There have been several questions on the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, which the Prime Minister does not seem to have answered with the necessary clarity. Is she aware that, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), we can understand that, on the conspiracy allegations made against Patrick Ryan, the legal advice may have been that they could not be pressed effectively under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act? However, is that the advice that the right hon. Lady has received on the other two allegations against Patrick Ryan—possession of explosives and handling of explosives? Is she saying that if she cannot get everything—including bringing Patrick Ryan from Ireland to this country—she will not take legal means to achieve anything?

The Prime Minister: No, I am not saying that. As I told the right hon. Gentleman, my legal advice is that only two of the four charges would come under that Act. The right hon. Gentleman is making an assumption about which two they are, although I have not told him that. If he wants more specific answers, he knows full well that he must obtain legal advice from the proper officer—my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my hon and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
Let me make it perfectly clear that we believe, nevertheless, in a policy of extradition and that it is far better to extradite people to stand trial in the country in which the offences have been committed.

Scottish Enterprise

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the White Paper on Scottish Enterprise, laid before Parliament today. The proposals set out in this paper will further strengthen the Scottish economy to meet the challenges of the 1990s by integrating the Government's support for training and for enterprise creation into a new body, Scottish Enterprise.
The Government have already transformed the British economy and given new confidence to industry, commerce and, indeed, the whole business community. We have reformed industrial relations legislation, stimulated increases in productivity, pushed forward a programme of deregulation, and opened up many sectors of the economy to competition through our privatisation programme and by other means. As a result, unemployment is now in sharp decline and enterprise is flourishing.
As these processes have gained in momentum, our two main instruments of direct support to the business of wealth creation in Scotland have seen a change of emphasis. The Scottish Development Agency, in its early years preoccupied with the problems of declining and elderly industries, now has the more positive purposes of accommodating, advising, informing, financing, attracting and developing enterprise, as well as a continuing commitment to renewing our environment. The Training Agency has coped admirably with the difficult and demanding task of alleviating the worst ills of unemployment, but it is now increasingly engaged in the aim of uprating and updating the skills of new entrants to the labour market, of unemployed adults and, indeed, of those in jobs.
As we enter the 1990s, two challenges face us. One is that of international competition, typified by the single European market in 1992. Skills of the highest order will be required at every level as firms increasingly look outward. The other challenge is the prospect of skill shortages. Continued growth is offering the unemployed wider opportunities, while the number of young entrants to the labour market is set to decline in Scotland, as elsewhere.
These challenges are combining to bring into sharp focus the need for a new and integrated approach. Enterprise creation and the growth of existing businesses are inextricably bound up with developing the skills of the work force. Industry is now prospering and able to shoulder its full responsibility for investing in the skills of its work force. Employers have to rediscover fully a sense of ownership of the system of training and enterprise creation. It is my hope that the proposals I am announcing today will constitute a quantum leap forward in this process.
Our proposals involve the creation of a new national body, Scottish Enterprise, whose main role will be to consider strategic issues relating to enterprise, employment creation and training and a network of employer-led local agencies, which will be responsible for stimulating the growth of self-sustaining enterprise, encouraging the creation of viable jobs and improving the skills of the work force in each area.
Scottish Enterprise will be a powerful agent for change. The statutory functions and powers of Scottish Enterprise

will be broadly like those in the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, as amended, together with the powers in the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended. Consequently, Scottish Enterprise will have a wide-ranging remit to enable it to continue the process of building the enterprise culture in Scotland.
It will continue the vital ongoing work of the SDA, but in addition, and for the first time, training in Scotland will be delivered through a Scottish body, working within a training policy framework for Great Britain agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but answerable to and provided with its resources by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Broadly speaking, Scottish Enterprise can be expected to receive the level of funding which would otherwise have been provided both for the Scottish Development Agency and for training programmes in Scotland. In the current year, that would amount to the best part of £500 million. The challenge for Scottish Enterprise and for the Scottish Office will be to use this enhanced role to meet the needs of business in Scotland in the 1990s.
A radical feature of our proposals is the creation of a comprehensive network of employer-led local agencies. Such local agencies will offer a one-door approach to employers and the wider community and will enable provision to be more closely attuned to the needs of the local labour market. They will allow local employers and others a much greater say in the delivery of services in their areas for training and enterprise creation. The opportunity is there to forge strong partnerships at local level and to provide a powerful focus for effecting local change. Local agency functions will include analysing the local labour market, developing training plans, subcontracting training work and monitoring performance, encouraging employers to increase their investment in training and providing business advice and support. Local agencies will, therefore, be responsible for the delivery of training tailored to meet local needs while operating within the framework of national policy.
Once local agencies have gained in strength and confidence, and shown themselves capable of taking on wider responsibilities, certain functions at present carried out by the Scottish Development Agency may be devolved to them. There are attractions in delegating as much authority as possible to the local level. However, in certain of its areas of operation, a national remit and powers have proved a major strength of the agency. A balance will have to be struck between local and central powers which enables the retention of present strengths as well as the desired improvement of local delivery. The Government have not yet come to a conclusion as to where this balance should lie and would welcome the views of all those concerned.
To set up the local agencies proposed, the Government will issue a prospectus inviting local employers to come forward with others from the community, such as people from enterprise trusts, colleges, training providers, trade unions, local authorities and voluntary organisations, to form the board of management in each area. We would expect two thirds or more of the membership to come from the senior ranks of private sector business. The Government are committed to giving the employers who will lead local agencies real responsibilities and the power to take the main decisions within a framework that ensures


public accountability. We are confident that within each community there are local employers and others who can rise to this exciting new challenge.
I am aware that these proposals will touch directly the lives of many people in Scotland: trainees, trainers, those already involved in enterprise support and, of course, the staff of the two bodies that are to merge. The success of Scottish Enterprise and of the local agencies will depend greatly upon the quality of their staff. For that reason, the Government believe that many of the staff in both the SDA and the Training Agency will choose to continue their present work with either Scottish Enterprise or the local agencies.
I should now like to draw attention to the position in the highlands and islands. We have in mind that the same principles outlined for Scottish Enterprise and the local agencies should apply there. Local employers should be given the opportunity to take a similar role as elsewhere. Of course, the geographical and economic characteristics of the north and west are different and we recognise the distinctive value of the contribution made by the Highlands and Islands Development Board to the regeneration of its area. We take the view that future arrangements must build on success to date. This points to the retention of a distinctive body for the highlands and islands and we put forward three options: to set up a new body, Highland Enterprise, incorporating the HIDB's functions together with responsibility for training; to retain the HIDB as it is and invite Scottish Enterprise to set up local agencies for training services in the highlands and islands; or to invite the HIDB to act as a local agency with Scottish Enterprise for training provision. We look forward to hearing the views of those who live and work in the highlands and islands on these options.
In conclusion, I take pride both in pointing to the achievements of the past and in presenting a White Paper which opens up challenging new vistas for the future. In so doing, I pay tribute to the contribution of Bill Hughes of the Scottish CBI who has stimulated public interest and debate in these ideas. I have been delighted by the widespread interest and enthusiasm for these proposals already obvious in public and private comment over recent weeks. It is clear that the people of Scotland are attracted to the new opportunities offered by this approach to training and enterprise creation. Important new responsibilities are proposed for the Scottish Office, for the staff of the Scottish Development Agency and for those involved in training, and especially for the Scottish business and industrial community.
We have not sought to answer all the questions at this stage. There will now follow a full consultation period until the end of March. I hope that everyone concerned with training and enterprise in Scotland will take the trouble to comment on these proposals so that together we can produce the best possible Scottish solution to Scottish needs.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I cannot remember any announcement that has been so well trailed and heralded. When we received it, the statement had been well decorated with public relations copy, including a fetching picture of a well-known Glasgow public house. The Secretary of State has done well in the cliché business in the past few minutes. There was one really purple

passage at the beginning, which says something for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courage, or at least for his brass neck. However, it is not clear how much substance there is behind the style. I suspect that those who were alarmed by the advance publicity will be at least temporarily relieved and that those who wanted a real attack on the problems of industrial training will be bitterly disappointed.
I shall start with the positive, because there is a positive side. I agree with the Secretary of State and welcome the need for a Scottish dimension to training. There should be a means of tailoring schemes to our needs in Scotland. I welcome the transfer of responsibility to the Scottish Office, although I note that the Department of Employment will still call the shots on national schemes. Will the Secretary of State note that one test for the new organisation when it is in being will be its ability, working with the Scottish Office, to influence the development of employment training and new training schemes?
There is an assumption in the White Paper that training is done for, not by, industry. There is no attack on the sad failure of industry in this country, which has left us trailing so far behind our principal competitors. At some point the Government must think seriously about the responsibility of industry, not just in terms of seconding an occasional executive to a local agency, but of tackling training in its own plants and factories with determination and the necessary resources.
The Secretary of State said that local agencies will be employer-led. We will expect them to represent the community generally. There must be a partnership, and few of us are convinced that there is an army of bright business men ready to enrol. In any event, whatever contribution employers may make to the new structure, they cannot have exclusive jurisdiction. The trade unions and local education authorities must have their place—not just a nod in passing.
There was also an assumption in the White Paper that the new structure will be funded simply by aggregating the existing budgets of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency in Scotland. I take it from that that there is to be no new money to back the new proposals. The Secretary of State must accept that adequate funding is essential if the quality is to be established and maintained. Our European competitors do that and do it well. Why should we not do the same? The Secretary of State talks about the challenge of 1992, but there will simply be window dressing if the investment is not made.
Training will obviously impact heavily on the Scottish Development Agency. Many of us feel that the case for combining the SDA and the Training Agency is not proven. Does the Secretary of State recall that the Opposition set down a number of tests which should be met?
I should like to ask the Secretary of State a number of specific questions. Will Locate in Scotland be affected in any way by the new arrangements? Will the ability of the Scottish Development Agency to stimulate investment, back growth and provide risk capital be in any way inhibited? Will the agency be able to mount local task forces and initiatives, linking with local authorities and the community, such as we have seen in Dundee, GEAR, Greenock and the Garnock valley? What happens to the Scottish Development Agency's decentralised structure? Will it continue, given that the agency's functions appear to be largely unaffected, at least at this stage? Does the


Secretary of State accept that we shall want to look closely at the impact of any transfer of function to local bodies, which may be proposed at some future date? Finally, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, whatever option is selected, the Highlands and Islands Development Board will be in a position to carry on with its distinctive and valued work?
The Secretary of State made a lengthy statement, full of complex hints and suggestions. Inevitably there are worries about the loss of the SDA name—a trade mark built on years of well-tried success. The House is entitled to ask the Secretary of State why we should fall into line with the copywriters of his noble Friend Lord Young at the Department of Trade and Industry and why we should accept that sort of Thatcherian rhetoric in Scotland? I should have thought that the name Scottish Development Agency might have been preserved, even if the restructuring was to go ahead.
We are entitled to look closely at what we are getting in return. It may simply be a minor reform of the training structure—perhaps more of a lost opportunity than anything else. Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite its title, his White Paper says nothing about enterprise creation and says less on training than had been promised? The Secretary of State described his scheme as "a quantum leap". Whatever it is, it is certainly not that.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for at least a good proportion of his response, which has consisted of some perfectly relevant questions that I shall now seek to answer. I thank him especially for his welcome of the proposal in the White Paper that there should be a Scottish dimension to training and that responsibility for training in Scotland should become part of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office.
The hon. Gentleman made one point with which I entirely agree—that training should ultimately be the responsibility of industry itself, and that Scottish industry, and industry in the United Kingdom as a whole, has been sadly reluctant to acknowledge its responsibilities in that sphere to the extent that is found in other countries in Western Europe. It is enormously encouraging that many of the ideas in the White Paper have come from Scottish industry and the chairman of the Scottish CBI, and that those representing industry in Scotland have already stated publicly that they welcome the idea of industry being expected to take more responsibility for the provision of training. That suggests that in Scotland industry is well aware of the relevance of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and that points the right road forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the composition of the local agencies and whether local authorities would have a role to play. He will see from the White Paper that that point is specifically covered. It states that, of course, local authorities as employers may have a contribution to make in their locality and that there is nothing to stop them and other bodies from coming forward, together with the private sector, and putting forward proposals for the creation of local agencies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. He will agree that the funding of Scottish Enterprise, which is to be about £500 million, is not exactly small beer. It is an enormous sum, of which £350 million represents what is currently being spent on training in Scotland. That

illustrates the seriousness with which the Government have approached the needs of training in Scotland over the past few years.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about Locate in Scotland. I can give him a categoric assurance that the work of Locate in Scotland will not be affected by any of the proposals in the White Paper. Locate in Scotland is concerned with inward investment, and its role and the way in which it operates will not be in any way diminished, damaged or affected by the proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the decentralised structure that the Scottish Development Agency has introduced in the past 18 months will be affected by the proposals. It is unlikely that it will be, but that will be a matter for the agency to decide in the next few months. The agency has chosen to decentralise its responsibilities to a more local level, and that has been widely welcomed. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, there is nothing in the proposal that need interfere with that process unless the agency itself were determined, for some reason, to choose otherwise.
In both the statement and the White Paper, I specifically acknowledged the hon. Gentleman's point about the Highland and Islands Development Board. I shall simply add that the principle behind the proposals is to encourage local diversity with regard to the provision of training. There is no reason why training in Dundee should be identical to training in Aberdeen or in Glasgow, because in many respects it is important to identify the needs of local economies within the national framework so that local training can be tailored to those requirements.
If that is true of individual localities in the central belt, the same principle clearly has to apply when considering proposals for the highlands and islands which have an economic framework and sparsity of population which is peculiar within the United Kingdom, never mind within Scotland. From that it follows that, although the same principles might be relevant in the highlands and islands, we are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the community in that part of Scotland should make its own contribution to identifying the way in which these principles can best be adapted to the economic circumstances of that part of Scotland.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the context of a fall in unemployment of 70,000 in Scotland in the past two years, that will provide a tremendous opportunity for youngsters and people of all ages to take a leap forward in training and skills and that it will accelerate the opportunity to provide more jobs in Scotland?
In the context of devolving Scottish Enterprise to the regions, will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about the integration of the enterprise trusts, the Scottish Development Agency regional offices, the Training Agency and the regional councils' economic development and planning committees? Are they to work together to provide more jobs, bearing in mind that in doing so they will need largely increased financial resources?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course I pay tribute to the work of the enterprise trusts. When I visited my hon. Friend's constituency and met members of his local enterprise trust in Dumfries, they said that they were very excited about the ideas that were then being discussed in the press—ideas


of a kind similar to those that I have set out today. I have no doubt that the success of the enterprise trust movement throughout Scotland illustrates that large numbers of people who are actively involved in industry are both willing and enthusiastic about making their contribution to the economic development of their localities. This proposal will provide them with an opportunity to have not merely an advisory role but a role in the execution and implementation of training in their localities. That can only benefit the local economy.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Secretary of State accept that training that is employer-led—presumably by many friends of the Government—does not mix well with the development role of the Scottish Development Agency? Scotland will be worried to hear that the Scottish Development Agency's name and reputation, which have been built up over the years, are to disappear overnight. Will the Secretary of State also make a commitment that the Highlands and Islands Development Board will remain master in its own area and will not lose its social commitment to the people of that area?

Mr. Rifkind: On the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I think that she might not have properly understood the proposals. I suggest that she ought to read the White Paper before suggesting that employer-led local agencies do not mix well with the development role of the Scottish Development Agency. Over the last few years, the SDA has made it clear that it sees the encouragement and development of local, employer-led initiatives in the localities within the various parts of Scotland as crucial to its objective; otherwise, it will be wasting its time. I am quite sure that that is its view now.
We recognise that there is a continuing need for a distinctive body, such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board, to serve the needs of the highlands and islands. When the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to read that part of the White Paper which deals with the matter, I think she will acknowledge that that requirement and that concern have been fully met.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Scotland will welcome the statement? Those who have been involved in training and in the running of businesses will regard it as the first sensible approach that there has been for a long time towards meeting the needs of industry. The divorce of training from the development of an industry has meant that bureaucratic machines have been dealing with two interrelated activities that were dependent on each other. The proposal will remove that problem, and it is to be welcomed.
During the consultations on the future role of training in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area, will he bear in mind that a large part of the Scottish highlands is not included in the HIDB area? Those who live south of the Drumochter pass in my constituency will expect training activities, incentives and management to be the same on both sides of the Drumochter pass.

Mr. Rifkind: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, we have said that the same principles should apply. We shall examine whether it will be possible, in the

much more sparsely populated areas of north and west Scotland, to have the same structure of local agencies as might be appropriate either in the central belt of Scotland or even in constituencies, such as that of my hon. Friend, which, compared with parts of Sutherland or Inverness-shire, are more populated. Moreover, the structure of their local business communities is much more substantial. We hope that the same principles will apply. We shall seek the views of those who live in the highlands and islands about how best these principles can be adapted to their circumstances.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State pays tribute in the statement to Bill Hughes for his initiative, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the original idea came from the private industry councils in the United States, where the main thrust of private industry councils is training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we welcome the determination to bring training back into the Scottish forum.
In his statement the Secretary of State refers to a "one-door approach." He must know that the Dundee project is a one-door approach. I remind the House that that project was started by a Tory-controlled regional council, a Labour-controlled district council and the Scottish Development Agency. It is one of the best examples of how industry can be encouraged to come into an area. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the one-door approach of the Dundee project will not be lost in this initiative?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I envisage that Scottish Enterprise will be directly involved in matters of national Scottish significance and that it may also be directly involved at its headquarters with projects which, although they may have only a local, geographical remit, may be of such significance to the overall Scottish economy as to justify that degree of involvement. Proposals about decentralising the functions of the SDA will continue with Scottish Enterprise unless and until it is demonstrated that they could be more sensibly dealt with at purely local level. We want to examine the best ways of delivering locally those services that can benefit the local economy. However, important projects will continue to have the same opportunities as they have now.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Secretary of State understand the concern that, under the guise of the welcome devolution of Training Agency functions to Scotland, we may be seeing the filleting of the Scottish Development Agency and perhaps of the Highlands and Islands Development Board? What core functions and how many jobs does the Secretary of State expect will be held at the centre of what succeeds the SDA and even, perhaps, the HIDB? Will the Secretary of State either confirm or deny that recruitment for the membership of local agencies is already under way? If not, what status does Sir Hector Laing's letter to enterprise boards, looking for likely candidates, have? Does he understand that there is a great deal of concern that the professionalism of the SDA and of the HIDB may be replaced by the patronage of the Conservative party?

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I have not seen any such letter, nor was I aware of the


possible existence of such a letter until I saw a newspaper report which, in every other respect, was inaccurate and which, for all I know, may have been inaccurate in that respect as well. Sir Hector Laing is involved with Scotbic, which has been involved with an enterprise trust. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman ought to address that question to Scotbic and find out what letters may or may not have been sent. I have no idea whether such a letter exists. I have not seen such a letter. The only knowledge that I have as to whether such a letter might exist is certain newspaper reports, which I presume are the source of the hon. Gentleman's information. Scotbic is not part of the Scottish Office. If it wishes to send letters, that is entirely a matter for Scotbic. No doubt it can provide the hon. Gentleman with the information that he seeks.
As for the staff who now work for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board at their headquarters, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that over the last year or so the number of staff has been reduced—in the case of the SDA, because it decided to decentralise some of its functions to its regional offices in various parts of Scotland. I do not envisage any of the proposals in the White Paper as likely to have a direct effect on the number of staff employed in the headquarters of the Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. Tony Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the spirit of enterprise comes from within and that it is difficult to impose it from without? For that reason, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to make the local agencies independent? Four years ago in Stockport the president of the chamber of commerce, a Scotsman, Ernest Petrie, started our local enterprise agency. Since then, there has been a burst of activity in Stockport and jobs and self-employment have been created. There has been no grant and no development agency, and unemployment is now less than 6 per cent. If there are 10 Scotsmen half as good as Mr. Petrie still in Scotland, that country has a great future.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend, and, in answering his remarks, I shall also deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who talked about patronage. Contrary to certain press reports, the Secretary of State for Scotland will not appoint either the chairmen or the members of the local agencies. They will come fron the local community. As I understand it, that is how they operate in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect a little? In a way we are all indebted to Bill Hughes for launching this venture. Those of us who have had discussions with Mr. Hughes recognise that his views were extremely embryonic. However, the responsibility for the White Paper lies with the Secretary of State alone. Will he reflect on the fact that one of the difficulties of employer-dominated training is that employers tend to train for jobs as they are, not jobs as they are likely to be? For example, if we had had employer-dominated training in Clydeside, we might still be training riveters if there were ships to build, and in Dundee we might still be training jute workers. The relationship between training, education and the future development of industry must be discussed, and there is little in the White Paper about that.
Does the Secretary of State accept that it is extremely difficult to reconcile the two roles of initiating new

ventures and training? Those two matters are not as co-related as they appear to be in the White Paper. Will the Secretary of State address that issue; and does he accept that, although we welcome the devolution element, we are anxious to see more money and effort put into it?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He said that he did not believe that training should be left to employers. However, he will recall that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that industry should accept responsibility for providing training for its employees. That view is certainly shared throughout Western Europe. We acknowledge that training must be provided, and we believe that a partnership of the type proposed is the best way to do it. In addition, we envisage local agencies preparing economic profiles of their localities showing the likely skill shortages over the next few years and identifying—at a time when demographic changes will lead to fewer youngsters being available for employment—the type of training necessary to ensure that the youngsters and other local people get the jobs available and that local industry obtains the people with the necessary skills.
For example, it is worrying that, with continuing high unemployment, a recent survey by the Scottish CBI identified that 15 per cent. of its members report skill shortages and an inability to recruit those with the necessary skills. That problem must be eliminated.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call all those hon. Members who are rising, but will they please ask briefer questions because that leads to briefer answers?

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that nobody could quarrel with some of the language in the White Paper—for example, where it says that we should be prepared for the future, where it refers to "Scottishness," and so on, and, on page 27, where it says that the document is for discussion by the general populace in Scotland. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea to help to retain the industry that already exists in Scotland? Is he aware that for the first time in a hundred years the Scottish coal mining industry is depleted and that all the planning, engineering and service industries will be dealt with south of the border? We have lost the Scottish coal mining industry as an indigenous industry for the first time in a hundred years. Will the Secretary of State look into that?

Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was unable to find anything with which to quarrel in the White Paper, because on other occasions he has not found that too difficult. It is true that the deep-mined coal sector has been going through a difficult time. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been more growth in opencast mining in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom and that it is now responsible for half the coal produced north of the border. Therefore, even within the coal industry, which has difficulties and problems, there have been areas of significant growth.

Mr. Adam Ingram: Only a few weeks ago the Secretary of State issued a consultative document on the future of Scotland's new towns. Does not today's


statement prejudge the efforts that have been made in looking for suitable alternatives to replace the new towns as job attraction agencies?

Mr. Rifkind: I hope not. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that it might, I should be delighted to hear the detailed reasons for his worry. I see nothing in the White Paper that is incompatible with the consultative document.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Secretary of State expect us to believe his assurance that Scottish Enterprise will be broadly based in view of the blatant abuse of patronage powers by the Government to invent what looks like a job creation scheme for failed Scottish Tory Members of Parliament, such as Ancram, Fletcher, Anna McCurley, Peter Fraser and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to accept that appointments to important public positions in Scotland should go to those best qualified to occupy them.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State explain how the local agencies will relate to the enterprise trusts and the development corporations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) referred? It is important that that should be clarified.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has raised important questions. Clearly, the enterprise trusts have been successful in attracting a significant number of people in local industry to serve in the local community and identify opportunities for economic growth and development. I am sure that many of those people would wish to serve on the local agencies. It might be that some of the enterprise trusts would put themselves forward as possible local agencies. We would like to explore those ideas with people who have experience in those matters.
As regards new towns, the responsibility for training has until now been the responsibility of the Training Commission—now the Training Agency—on a national basis. Clearly, if training is now to be delivered locally in the way we have suggested, there is no reason why that could not apply equally in the new towns. I accept that the new towns are in a special position and, as I said to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I shall be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on any particular problems of which we should be aware.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State, for once, acknowledge the excellent work being done by local authorities in many parts of Scotland, including my constituency, in promoting industry and enterprise in their areas? I accept that the new training agencies may need to be slightly more broadly based than the local district council areas in Scotland now, but does he accept that the suggestion that Edinburgh and East Lothian should be regarded as a local area for enterprise creation in the future may not be greeted enthusiastically in my constituency?

Mr. Rifkind: Those who draft the boundaries for the local agencies will be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's views. I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of local authorities. Indeed, it is referred to in the White Paper, which says:

it is encouraging that many local authorities are already increasingly choosing to work in partnership with private sector interests to generate local economic development.

Mr. James Wallace: As well as training duties, the Secretary of State has said that he sees local agencies as having a role in providing a local economic audit or profile. How does he see the local area agencies, particularly in areas such as mine, being resourced for an administrative purpose.

Mr. Rifkind: We anticipate that the bulk of their funds—in some cases a high proportion of funds—will come from Scottish Enterprise. The local agency will present to Scottish Enterprise its proposals on the needs and training requirements of the local economy. If Scottish Enterprise were satisfied that the local agency consisted of people who were fit and proper to be responsible for the implementation of training policy and that they had sensible proposals which would involve the proper use of public funds, Scottish Enterprise would enter into a contractual relationship with the local agency for the delivery of the services.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware that the White Paper is testimony to the lamentable record of the Government over nine years of failing to train people? Not only have they given training opportunities at a lower rate than the United States, France and Germany, but they have provided fewer than even Taiwan and South Korea. Will he tell the House what in this vacuous paper gives hope to the 6,000 youngsters who are currently unable to be offered YTS places by his Government?

Mr. Rifkind: As the level of resources and training provided during the past 10 years was light years in excess of anything provided by the last Labour Government, any defects in the United Kingdom in regard to training certainly did not begin in 1979.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: Among the clichés and half-truths of the statement and the Minister's waffle today, there are one or two real nuggets of wisdom. The White Paper, in page 9, states:
Efforts to date to persuade the private sector to take greater interest in and responsibility for training have had disappointing results … Even though skills shortages in some sectors are already becoming apparent, industry as a whole is still insufficiently aware of the key changes ahead in the labour market and so is not planning ahead to cope with future needs.
What makes the Minister think that people who have failed to plan for their own needs are in any way capable of planning for everyone else's needs?

Mr. Rifkind: That is a perfectly reasonable question. I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, Scottish industry and the Scottish CBI have said that they wish to be given the responsibility for the provision of training and for developments described in the White Paper. Industry would not have been calling for that a few years ago.
Secondly, in the past few years there has been the very welcome development of the enterprise trusts which have similar activities, which owe their genesis to the private sector in Scotland, and which now cover virtually the whole of Scotland. The fact that hundreds of local business men throughout Scotland have given their time, effort, enthusiasm and sometimes their resources not for the


immediate benefit of their own companies—although their companies often indirectly benefit—but to identify the local economic requirements of their community and to act in a responsible and constructive way in developing the potential of their locality is a very good reason for believing that they will respond to these new opportunities as they have said they will.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I welcome the Government's admission that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland described from the Front Bench in a Scottish Grand Committee debate on 14 July 1988 as a Bennite instrument of state intervention, has been of central importance to improving life in the highlands and islands in the past 20 years. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that he failed to answer from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and give an assurance that none of the three options will in any way diminish the unique social remit of the Highlands and Islands Development Board?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are lots of hens in the highlands and islands of Scotland, and I am sure that a good proportion of them have the unqualified admiration of all my hon. Friends. I am happy to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks. We recognise the distinctive contribution of the HIDB in the highlands and islands. We look forward to a contribution from the HIDB and from those who live in the highlands and islands on the sort of structure that they believe would be relevant in their circumstances.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the SDA's area projects will not be diminished or adversely affected in any way by these proposals? More particularly, will he give the people of Inverclyde an assurance that the Inverclyde initiative will continue with its work? I remind him that annex A on page 29 contains an admission that Greenock, together with Irvine,
exhibit a very high rate of unemployment.
Does he agree that the Inverclyde initiative, which has not done a great deal until now, requires more resources than the threat of being shifted to Irvine or some other place?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no danger of the Inverclyde initiative being shifted to Irvine. He will be aware that I had a meeting with representatives of the local community in Inverclyde, who gave me a number of examples and suggestions as to what they believe should be the structure and format of the Inverclyde initiative. We have been able to respond positively to all of them, including the most important of all—the creation of the enterprise zone.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I am quite surprised at the Minister. It was a lovely package but it says nothing because the most important element is missing—new money. There is no new money here. There is nothing to tackle the crisis that is about to arise in my constituency with the closure of the Bishopton royal ordnance factory.
The Minister mentioned employer-led initiatives. There are nearly no employers left in my constituency because the Government have done their best to close them. The most recent occurrence, at CalMac, is to move 200 jobs from Gourock to Oban. What does the Minister propose

to do about the workers who will not move there? Is he going to retrain them? Nearly every penny that is committed here could be spent on the 1,100 jobs that will be lost in Bishopton. My constituents will see this as a fancy package with poison inside it. No one wants it unless it produces the goods. It does not produce the goods for Scotland. We need new money—a massive injection of cash—without it being frittered away by the Government.

Mr. Rifkind: That was a splendid, if not predictable, contribution from the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that his solution for every problem in Scotland—and no doubt anywhere else in the world—is more money, but he does not appear to have worked out what he would do with it if it were provided. As Scottish Enterprise will have resources of £500 million, which represents the current resources of the Training Agency and the SDA, he can hardly suggest that it will be skimped for ways of ensuring that the needs of his constituents and of those in other parts of Scotland will be fully satisfied.

Mr. Tony Worthington: When the Hughes plan was mooted, I welcomed it because it would return training to Scotland and to Scottish control, but that is not what is proposed here. The White Paper states that the Department of Employment will remain the lead agency and that it will set the national framework. At the moment, if one wants to change the employment training scheme or the youth training scheme, one writes to the Department of Employment in order to get to the organ grinder, but one is referred back to the monkey. Will the Secretary of State confirm that nothing in the proposal will allow any Scottish alteration of the employment training scheme, the youth training scheme or any other scheme?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood what is in the White Paper. I would advise him to read it more carefully before he jumps to conclusions. The White Paper and my statement today say that the national training policy will be decided jointly by the training Ministers. Obviously the Secretary of State for Employment, whose responsibilities cover 45 million people in the United Kingdom, is the lead Minister. It would be very odd for it to be otherwise. Training policy will be determined by the Ministers who are responsible for training, and in future the Secretary of State for Scotland will be responsible for training policy in Scotland.

Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State said that he expected two thirds of the local agencies to consist of the senior ranks of private sector business. Will he expand on the role that he envisages for local authorities in the agencies, and in particular the mechanics for securing local authority representation? It is only a matter of weeks since his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office came to Dundee and sang the praises of the local authority-led Tayside enterprise board as representing all that is best in co-operation between the public and private sectors. Why does he disagree with his ministerial colleagues in this matter?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that local authorities, as employers in their areas, together with other employers, will be perfectly free to come forward with proposals for local agencies. The primary purpose of the initiative is wealth and job creation. That must clearly be the primary


responsibility of those in manufacturing industry and in commerce and business generally.
Therefore, any initiative that is not led by those who are essentially involved in the business of wealth and job creation would fail from the start. Local authorities have a contribution to make, as have other non-industrial organisations referred to in the White Paper, but it would be quite unrealistic to pretend that their responsibility in this area of policy should be the same as or greater than that of local industry.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), may I say that the Secretary of State is quite right to point out that there are many bens in the islands and highlands, but there are also a few buts. One of them is on page 29. The White Paper seems to equate the social and economic features of Skye and Wester Ross with those of Sutherland, which would be true to an extent, and of Thurso and Wick. Surely the Secretary of State must concede that the economic base of northern Caithness is substantially different from those of Skye and Wester Ross. Looking to the future—it is a gloomy one—the only similarity that I can see is that, if the potential threat to Dounreay, as outlined by the Secretary of State for Energy, ever comes to pass, both areas will share in a sad major industrial rundown. In Skye and Wester Ross, it will involve the Kishorn yard, and, in the Caithness economy, it will involve Dounreay. What is the other basis on which it is a manageable area in terms of the similarities that the White Paper seems to suggest?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman and of those who live in those areas. If there is to be a structure of local agencies in the more sparsely populated parts of Scotland, clearly such areas cannot be so small as to be unlikely to provide those who will actually be responsible for running the local agencies and supervising the implementation of training policy. There is a certain minimum area size for an agency to be viable.

Mr. Kennedy: It is enormous.

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly enormous in geographical terms, but it covers a total population of 55,000—[Interruption.] No one is questioning the importance of it. As I said, these are not final conclusions on the areas of the local agencies.
The hon. Gentleman must consider whether an area as small as Skye or as small as Skye and Wester Ross—[Interruption.] In terms of population, it is very small—can provide the personalities and the framework that would enable a local agency to carry out its responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman will not be serving the interests of his constituents if he puts forward proposals which, by their essence, are non-viable. This is not a conclusion; it is a suggested framework of proposals, and the hon. Gentleman might like to bear that in mind.

Scottish Question Time

Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have already given you private notice of this matter. I refer to Scottish Question Time well ahead of 21 December, when we should first discuss these matters. I refer also to substantial interventions made by English Members during Scottish Question Time. I am seeking a remedy from you within the powers that are available to you and within your responsibilities.
On 30 November, in column 714 of Hansard, when the Scottish Transport Group statement was before the House, there was an interruption on the Opposition side of the House, no doubt because a Conservative Member representing an English constituency wished to speak. You said:
This is a United Kingdom Parliament."—[Official Report, 30 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 714.]
However reluctantly, I acknowledge that that is the case. More importantly, in column 352 of Hansard, on 22 July 1987, you are recorded as saying:
Scottish Members take part in English Question Times and English Members may take part in Scottish Question Times."—[Official Report, 22 July 1987; Vol. 120, c. 352.]
You, Mr. Speaker, seriously misdirected yourself on the facts. This is not a personal attack upon you. I am sure that at some time in their careers everyone sitting in the House of Lords, the highest Bench, has misdirected himself. The important thing is that, when somebody misdirects himself, he must re-examine the conclusions that he drew at that time.
I have carefully looked through questions on the Order Paper, Department by Department. In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as a Department that can be categorised as dealing only with English questions. Moreover, even the Department of the Environment, which has a finger in the pie in the administration of Edinburgh castle, has a United Kingdom dimension, however large or small.
I have read "Erskine May" and Standing Orders. In a sense, the House is rather like the legal system, which operates on the common law and on statute, the common law being practice and the statutes being the Standing Orders. Under the heading "Written and Unwritten Procedure", in page 209 of "Erskine May", it states:
On its smaller scale, the study of English parliamentary procedure presents the same difficulty as the study of English law in that its rules are not covered by any comprehensive and authoritative code.
It goes on to state:
The written part is merely a pendant to the unwritten part.
We must look at "Erskine May" and Standing Orders to define exactly what your powers and responsibilities are, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, practice is important. When I was previously in the House, the practice was quite clear. Scottish Question Time was dealt with by Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies. Looking at Standing Orders, which are the equivalent of statute law, the recognition of the Scottish dimension within the United Kingdom Parliament has been a progressive affair over a period of years.
When I first came to the House in 1970—you will recall this from your previous incarnation also, Mr. Speaker—when the Scottish Grand Committee was established, people such as Sir William van Straubenzee, who told the


Tory Whips that his name rhymed with Mackenzie, were directed to the Scottish Grand Committee. In those days Committees were made up to represent the Government and the Opposition numbers in the House. Many English Members served on the Scottish Grand Committee—a sort of purgatory for those whom the Whips did not like. Over time, that practice has been dispensed with.
Above all, this is a political institution, and it must be sensitive to political reality. It became an untenable practice to load the Scottish Grand Committee with Members of Parliament representing English constituencies. Why has the practice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is raising general matters.

Mr. Sillars: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I must disagree with you. They are specific matters. We are talking about the change in practice, and that change is a recent one. It goes back only to the 1987 general election results. If you compare the period before that with the period since the general election, you will see that the practice has fundamentally changed. I suggest that the matter is within your powers and responsibilities. It is no longer the case that Scottish Question Time is reserved for Scottish Members of Parliament.
I seek two actions from you, Mr. Speaker. They are within your powers and responsibilities. The relevant authorities setting out your powers and responsibilities are "Erskine May" and Standing Orders. "Erskine May", in page 334, clearly states:
The Speaker is the final authority as to the admissibility of questions.
The Speaker's responsibility in regard to questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House.
I shall quote an analysis of Scottish Question Time since this Parliament was established after the general election.

Mr. Speaker: As we have an important debate following this matter, in the interests of the House—we are dealing with the interests of the House—I think it would be sensible if the hon. Gentleman were to come to see me about this matter, when I would gladly and willingly consider it with him in great detail. I do not think that it is appropriate to raise these issues when we have such a busy day in front of us.

Mr. Sillars: That is an unacceptable suggestion from you, Mr. Speaker, because "Erskine May" tells us that the place to raise a point of order of public concern is in the House, and that is exactly what I am doing. I am about to give you an analysis of the position since 1987 which demonstrates clearly the unacceptability of the new practice that you have introduced.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make accusations like that. Come to the point and I shall deal with it.

Mr. Sillars: This is not a question of accusations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been here at Question Time and the hon. Gentleman has not been here. I know what he is talking about, and I do not need to be reminded of it.

Mr. Sillars: I take it that you are familiar with the fact that English and Welsh Tory Members of Parliament have asked nearly 20 per cent. of balloted questions and 15·9 per cent. of supplementaries, whereas the SNP has asked only

5·9 per cent. of supplementaries—[Interruption.] It is you, Mr. Speaker, who selects supplementaries. Four Tory Members representing English constituencies have been able to ask more questions than my hon. Friends in the SNP parliamentary group.
I will tell you why I am raising this with you in public, Mr. Speaker. On 21 December I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question about drug abuse in Govan and how further aid can be given to communities dealing with that problem. My constituents will fail utterly to understand if I am knocked out of the queue by English Tory Members who have no interest in the Scottish matter. Therefore, I am asking you to say that you will not select English Tory Members to ask supplementaries and that you will convene a conference of the Whips of the four relevant parties.
I hope that you will not refer me to the usual channels, Mr. Speaker, because, if you do, I shall refer you to Standing Order No. 130, which lays an obligation on this House to have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The operative word is not "may" but "shall". Eighteen months into this Parliament, the usual channels have still failed to deliver.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: After 10 minutes on the preceding point, another two minutes on this will be about enough.

Mr. Walker: I have no wish to detain the House. When you take into consideration all the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), as I am sure you will, I trust that you will bear in mind the fact that Members, such as myself, who regularly attend Question Time, are frequently not called because of the numbers on these Benches. Frequently, Scottish Labour Members are called on matters in which we on this side have an interest. That is how this balances out. I hope that you will bear that in mind when you consider such aspects of this United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and I have no authority to change that. It is a heavy responsibility for Mr. Speaker to be completely even handed. We welcome back the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) after some time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. In that case I welcome the hon. Gentleman back. He only needs to do the arithmetic to see that if the Chair were wholly fair no Member of Parliament would be called to speak in a debate more than about four times a Session on average. If he looks at the record, he will find that members of his party have done rather better than that, largely because I have an obligation to look after the rights of minority parties.
I shall certainly not be put in a position of agreeing only to call Scottish Members at Scottish Question Time because this is a United Kingdom Parliament and certain questions, for instance on the Forestry Commission, can be answered only by Scottish Ministers. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for English Members to table questions on the day for Scottish questions and to participate as Members of a United Kingdom Parliament, just as it is legitimate for Scottish Members to take part in questions directed to other Departments, as was the case at both Employment Question Time and Prime Minister's


Question Time today. I had not anticipated what the hon. Gentleman was going to say, but his party did rather well today. I do not think that he has any complaint.

Mr. Sillars: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No. I am not taking it again.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I raised a similar point of order in July last year about the first Scottish Question Time after the general election. If you check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will see that you made a mistake in referring to English questions and you corrected yourself afterwards and reference to said United Kingdom questions.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) makes a fair point. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prohibit an English Member from intervening in Scottish Question Time, but until July 1987 by custom, tradition and practice only rarely, if ever, did English Members intervene in Scottish Question Time. The tradition was broken last year because, to be blunt, the Labour party was too successful in Scotland, winning 50 of the 72 seats, and the Tories were reduced to a discredited rump of 10. We are being punished for our success because now it is more difficult for a Scottish Labour Back Bencher to catch your eye due to the infiltration of English Tory Members. All we are asking is that you use your discretionary power, Mr. Speaker, return to what was the custom and tradition of the House before July 1987, and let us have more opportunities to speak on behalf of our constituents.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

I also have to bear in mind that we have questions to the Northern Ireland Office. In the past, I have been heavily criticised by Labour Members who have not been called for calling too many Northern Ireland Members to ask questions and supplementaries. Some of those hon. Members are nodding their heads now. I have a heavy responsibility and the House had best leave this to Mr. Speaker, whom I hope they trust to be entirely fair.

Mr. James Couchman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the substantial transfer payments from England to Scotland, is it not entirely reasonable that English Members should represent English taxpayers' interests by asking questions about Scottish business at Scottish Question Time?

Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your direction on the point raised about Standing Order No. 130, which states that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs "shall be" established, not "might" or "may be" established. What recourse do I have as a Back-Bench Member to ensure that this House follows its Standing Orders? Is that matter not in your province, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Last week there was a procedure debate in which the Leader of the House promised a debate on that very matter. If the hon. Member and his hon. Friends think that Mr. Speaker's practice should be changed, we have a Procedure Committee which has wide powers of reference and he could put this matter about Scottish questions to it. If the House in its wisdom decides that only Scottish Members should be called at Scottish Question Time or only Ulster Members at Northern Ireland Question Time, I shall follow that decision. Until then, I propose to carry on as I have in the past, being even handed to both sides of the House.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Since we have such a late start to this important debate, I appeal for brief contributions from the Front and Back Benches.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Like my predecessors, Labour and Conservative, I have to show that the necessary effort against terrorism requires certain limited powers for the police and for the courts which go beyond those granted by the ordinary law. I hope that I shall not have great difficulty in doing that this afternoon because events in all our minds make the argument for me.
The Bill covers international as well as Irish terrorism. There are examples of how we have suffered from international terrorism which I need not rehearse because they are familiar to the House. But for some months now our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland, and we ourselves, have been living through a particularly intense phase in the latest campaign by the Provisional IRA. The past 20 years have seen in the United Kingdom a terrorist campaign unparalleled in the western world, aimed ostensibly at the goal of a united Marxist Ireland. This campaign has caused the death of almost 3,000 men, women and children, more than three quarters of them Irish men and women. It has also been responsible for the deaths of more than 400 soldiers. This year alone 91 people have been killed in Northern Ireland.
Those statistics take their place among all the other statistical information with which we are bombarded, but they do not tell the full story of the individuals—of 21-year-old Gillian Johnson murdered in county Fermanagh: she is not just a statistic; a 12-year-old schoolgirl severely injured when a bomb exploded on a school bus; two elderly householders killed when a booby trap bomb exploded in a block of flats in Londonderry; 32 soldiers and six police officers killed this year; Mr. Lavery and his 13-year-old granddaughter murdered last week in the village of Benburb.
It should not be just for right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies to lay those tragedies before us. Recent events prove beyond doubt a point that was made at Question Time today—that we must redouble and intensify our efforts to tell the world the simple truth about the Provisional IRA.
I want to make two brief points before I come to the Bill. The record shows that the only currency in which the Provisional IRA is interested is that of corpses. In creating misery they are masters, but in advancing towards a united Ireland they are failures. They have not broken the determination of the people of Northern Ireland. They have not deflected our security forces. They have not bullied the House or our constituents into calling on us to abandon the effort against them. The few and fractious

voices raised in support of the abandonment of Northern Ireland find no echo. For all their ferocity, the IRA has failed, and will continue to fail.
A month ago the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) accused the Government of working on
the cardinal error that somehow we can make the law defeat terrorism."—[Official Report, 2 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 1113.]
But it is not an argument against a particular measure that by itself it does not do all that is required. Success against terrorism in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, depends on energetic co-operation in the security effort on both sides of the border. It depends on all the valiant efforts, in which the hon. Gentleman's party joins, being made to reconcile the two communities in the north. It depends on sustaining the economy. But it also depends, and depends crucially, on having in place laws properly adapted to the prevention and pursuit of terrorism. Terrorism is a crime, but it is an exceptional crime, directed at the heart of society, carried out on the whole by well-trained and well-equipped men. Society has to learn to protect itself by measures to prevent terrorism and then, if necessary, to bring terrorists to justice.
The Bill is called the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, not the "Punishment of Terrorism" Bill. The limited special powers which I shall ask the House to approve save lives because they are powers of prevention. I exercised those powers for a year as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for three years in my present position and, incident by incident, I have no doubt of that. If we have to wait to act until evidence of a specific offence is available, we may have to wait until there is a victim. That is to wait too long. We must be able to act where we can before blood is spilled on the streets.
The first Prevention of Terrorism Bill was introduced by a Labour Government in two days in November 1974 in the light of a particular violent campaign on the mainland. Members of the Opposition Front Bench once grasped the nettle and took the action that they have since come to oppose. The 1974 Act and the Act passed two years later in 1976 contained many of the powers which we have come to see as essential to our security forces—proscription, special powers of arrest and detention and exclusion, as well as examination at ports handling traffic within the common travel area. The 1976 Act was replaced by a further Act in 1984, which was given a five year life. It expires on 21 March 1989.
The Bill before the House replaces that Act. In working it out we have had in mind three principles. We want to preserve the core of the powers which have proved their worth in the fight against terrorism. We want to bring before the House a number of new measures, principally financial, which we believe will add significantly to those defences, and we want to bring in a number of reforms which have been proposed in the review of the legislation by Lord Colville.
During the passage of the 1983 Bill my predecessor announced an independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act each year. There have been thorough and critical reviews by Sir Cyril Philips in 1984 and 1985, and by Lord Colville in 1986 and 1987. Last year I asked Lord Colville to widen his terms of reference to consider not just the operation of the Act but the legislation as a whole. The Bill includes many of his recommendations, and I thank him for the care and thoroughness with which he has


approached a difficult and sometimes thankless task. Lord Colville has agreed to continue his work of scrutinising the operation of the Act, by the police and the Executive, and that is good news.
The central powers in the Bill remain unchanged because we believe that they are needed. Lord Colville accepted the continued need for the powers of arrest and detention, but disagreed with us over exclusion. I share Lord Colville's dislike for exclusion in principle. I must take great care when exercising the power. A great amount of detail is brought before me in each case. But I see no alternative when it is not possible to bring charges against those who are planning acts of terrorism. Let me give an example.
Earlier this year the police were able to locate and follow a number of people in London whom they suspected of being members of an IRA active service unit. It was not possible to bring charges against them because no terrorist act had yet been committed. But I had no doubt on the information available to me that they should not be allowed to remain here to prepare or plan for acts of terrorism. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, we sometimes have intelligence which, for obvious reasons, we cannot quote in court. Case by case, there are justifications for exclusion. Let me give another practical example which crops up from time to time. Exclusion seems to be justified when people convicted of serious terrorist offences talk openly in prison of their intention to become involved in terrorism again once their sentence has expired. There again, with the proper precautions, a decision on exclusion is justified.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary accept from me that no Opposition Member supports terrorism or bomb outrages, or indeed, as far as I know, the IRA? However, since the right hon. Gentleman is giving examples, let me give him one. One of my constituents, Peter Clifford, a bookseller, was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and, frankly, that was an outrage. That is why people such as me object to it. How many people have been arrested under the Act but have never been charged with terrorist offences?

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I was dealing with exclusion. He misses the whole point of the legislation, which is prevention. It is illusory to suppose that every act of detention or exclusion can be justified only if a charge follows. If the hon. Gentleman had been following my argument, he would know that the whole point is that that is not necessarily so.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but I have already shortened my speech considerably because, as Mr. Speaker said, we are starting at a late hour through no fault of ours, and that will limit to some extent my giving way.

Mr. Hunter: I just felt that my right hon. Friend was being too fair in referring only to Lord Colville's objections to exclusion orders. It is equally relevant to record that Lord Jellicoe, in his review, regarded exclusion orders as being vital to public safety and to combating terrorism.

Mr. Hurd: There is disagreement between those two noble Lords, and I have given my view.
The system of three-year reviews introduced in the last Bill has meant a substantial reduction in the number of people excluded, which is now 123. Even if the power were used even less than it is now, I should continue to believe that in a rare number of cases it is necessary.
The power to arrest and detain persons on reasonable suspicion of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism has shown itself to be an invaluable part of our armoury, and Lord Colville had no hesitation in recommending its continuance.
The House is aware of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others, which was delivered last week. The court found that the purpose of the arrests of the four applicants in that case fell well within the purposes permitted by the convention—that these arrests were based on reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence within the meaning of the convention, and that the intention behind the arrests was to bring charges if sufficient and usable evidence could be obtained. The judgment makes it clear that the arrest powers—a cornerstone of our prevention of terrorism legislation—do not conflict with the European convention on human rights.
Where the court differed from the Government was not over the arrest power or the length of detention available under the Act, but on the need for detainees to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.
The Government have no doubt that the seven days detention, which has been available under the 1974 Act and its successors, is fully justified in some cases in order to give the police time to complete often complex inquiries to establish—

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I shall finish this section about detention, because it is an argument that runs forward, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I was saying that I believe, as our predecessors did, that this power is fully justified in some cases to give the police time to complete often complex inquiries in order to establish whether an offence has been committed. In his report, Lord Colville set out 14 reasons why the police might need this period of detention in such cases. The extended period of detention has led to major charges in respect of a number of terrorist crimes. I shall give an example. Following the shooting at close range of an off-duty part-time RUC reservist, and, acting on information, the police detained a person in connection with the crime. A three-day extension of his detention was requested for questioning about the suspect's alleged involvement in the incident and to await the completion of forensic and fingerprint comparisons. But it was only after a further two-day extension—up to the maximum—for the police to check out an alibi that the detainee could be charged with murder. He is now serving a life sentence.
Against the background of the terrorist campaign that this country continues to suffer, and the overriding need to bring terrorists to justice, we do not believe that the maximum time a detainee is available for interview under the terrorism legislation should be any less. We wish to ensure that the police continue to have the powers which they and we believe they need to counter terrorism. It


follows, as those familiar with the convention will know, that there are two ways in which we can proceed. We can decide to derogate under the convention in respect of the exercise of these powers, as provided for in article 15 of the convention; or we can introduce a judicial element into the procedure for authorising extensions of detention in order to comply with article 5.3 of the convention. The court recognised the difficulties of judicial control over decisions to arrest and detain suspected terrorists. It acknowledged that these may call for suitable procedural precautions. It acknowledged, too, the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Our system contrasts with that on the continent, in which examining magistrates supervise police inquiries and also, normally, authorise detention. I have no doubt that the House, as I would, would have preferred to see this matter resolved before debating the Second Reading of the Bill today. But it would not have been sensible to rush into hasty decisions on a highly complicated problem between last week's judgment and today's debate. I believe that the House will understand why we feel it necessary to proceed with a little more deliberation in this case. We are examining the problem with an open mind, and I shall bring forward our proposals, as the House is entitled to expect, before the Bill leaves this House.
Does the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) wish to comment on detention?

Mr. Mullin: Does the Home Secretary agree that at the root of many of the actual and alleged miscarriages of justice lie convictions based mainly—or entirely in some cases—on confessions obtained in police custody? Does he agree, therefore, that the longer a suspect remains in police custody, the easier it is for police to obtain uncorroborated confessions? Does he agree that that is an unhealthy aspect, which is common to many of the principal alleged miscarriages of justice, starting with Timothy Evans and finishing with the Birmingham and Guildford bombing cases?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's worries about these matters are to a substantial extent out of date. I believe that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the changes in procedure as to what happens in police stations in Northern Ireland mean that many of those fears are now unfounded.
Lord Colville recommended that the Act should become permanent. We have considered his recommendation carefully and, of course, one can argue that after 14 years, if terrorism shows no sign of abating, Parliament should face the need for permanent legislation. We believe that it is right that exceptional powers, such as these, should be allowed to remain on the statute book only for as long as is absolutely necessary. We believe that Parliament should regularly have to take a conscious decision as to whether they should remain in force. That is why the powers in the Bill will, as now, have to be renewed regularly or they will lapse. They can be renewed wholly or in part, as Parliament decides, so that if Parliament takes the view at any time that a certain provision can safely be allowed to cease to have effect, this can happen. But we do not believe that it is necessary to have a new Act every five years. So we have returned to the position in the 1974 and 1976 Acts of annual review and continuance, but we shall give the Bill no expiry date.
There are two provisions in part V of the Bill which are new and which apply only to Northern Ireland. I shall mention them only in summary, because my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with them in his reply. Those provisions refer to changes in the remission arrangements, which arise because of our growing concern about the number of people who return to terrorism after being released from prison. Those changes will not affect those now in prison and will apply only to those who commit offences after the Bill becomes law.
We have decided first to reduce remission from one half to one third for people who commit serious terrorist offences and who are sentenced to fixed terms of five years or more. This will not apply to those sentenced to less than five years imprisonment or to those convicted of non-scheduled offences. We are also providing—remember that this is important—that people on conditional release from prison, who are convicted of a scheduled offence, will be required to serve first any unexpired period of remission relating to the previous prison sentence. These measures are designed to deter people from committing terrorist offences and, by restricting the opportunity for those convicted to become further involved on release, to protect the general public.

Ms. Clare Short: From the time that the right hon. Gentleman served in Northern Ireland, he will appreciate that the large numbers of young people who are in prison because they have been convicted of offences connected with terrorism tends to tie their families, those who live near them and whole sections of the community to support and loyalty to that individual and loyalty to the paramilitary organisation. He must know that because it relates to the concern to obtain the release of young prisoners. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill will simply tie even more people, for even longer, to loyalty to the person in prison and thus to the paramilitary organisation?

Mr. Hurd: The great thing is to prevent people from being swept into that disastrous cycle. Notions such as, "You are in the Maze, but not for so long and then you come back and join us again" are held by certain people. If the new added deterrents are known, from the start, by new offenders I believe that they could have the opposite effect to what the hon. Lady fears. I believe that they will effectively discourage people from getting involved in such horror.
The new provisions on the finances of terrorism are complicated. I am truncating my remarks, but if there are any particular points that hon. Members wish to raise, as opposed to in Committee, my hon. Friend will deal with them later.
The existing Acts prohibit contributions to acts of Northern Irish terrorism and give a power to the courts to order the forfeiture of any money or property intended to be used for terrorist offences. In recent years, it has become clear that we must do more than that and that we need more extensive financial legislation to strike at the financial roots of terrorism. The Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir John Hermon, made that clear in his annual report for 1987. One estimate of the annual income of the Provisional IRA is put at between £3 million and £4 million a year. The provisionals need that money to buy arms and equipment because it is not all given to them by


Colonel Gaddafi. They need the money to support the members of their ASUs and their dependants and also to fund the work of Sinn Fein.
Because money is so important to the Provisional IRA, that organisation has devoted a good deal of time and effort to fund raising. We must halt and reverse its success. Such fund raising is partly a matter of extortion and armed robbery and, of course, that is already covered by law. However, the IRA has gone into apparently legitimate business that gives it an assured income and a firmer base. It is, for example, producing, on quite a large scale, pirate videos. It is engineering mortgage fraud through unsuspecting estate agents. The RUC is actively investigating those matters, but the Chief Constable believes that the powers contained in the Bill are vital if he is to tackle the root of such terrorist racketeering.
It is not just the IRA which is involved in such things. We also have evidence that middle east terrorist groups have used the London banking system to their advantage. An Abu Nidhal cell was discovered in London in 1986 and it was run at a cost of about £50,000 a year. Money had been brought into the United Kingdom by couriers and maintained by the cell's leader to pay for safe houses, the travel expenses of the agent, as well as the salaries of the team.
In the Bill we propose a range of measures aimed at intercepting the flow of funds to terrorism. We have built on section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 to provide a comprehensive scheme of investigation, prosecution and forfeiture of funds or property destined to be used to finance terrorism. Under clause 9 of the Bill it is an offence to solicit, receive or to make available money or other contributions for terrorist purposes. It will also be an offence to enter into, or otherwise be concerned in, an arrangement whereby money or other property is made available to a person for terrorist purposes, which are widely defined in the Bill. That is intended to cover, for example, banking transactions involving payments to a customer's order. The offence will also cover an arrangement whereby money or other property is made available to a lawful business and either that money, or the profits of that activity, is intended to be used for terrorist purposes. I make it clear—it could become an important point—that those offences will apply to Northern Irish and international terrorism. Moreover, entering an arrangement facilitating the retention or control of terrorist funds will be an offence—the so-called laundering offence. In order to commit that offence the person entering into such an arrangement must know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, that the arrangement is related to terrorist funds.
We hope that, as with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the police will have the co-operation of the banks and other financial organisations. We have discussed the proposals with the financial institutions of the banking world in London and Belfast and they accept the need for incisive action against funds passing through banks and other financial institutions. We are glad of that.
The Bill will provide for the forfeiture of money or property destined for terrorist use or which was the subject of an arrangement for handling or laundering terrorist funds. It will prohibit dealings in property, which is liable to be forfeited, and the police will be able to apply for a

restraint order before a person is charged. That power to freeze has been extremely important in the case of drug trafficking and that power is crucial if anyone liable to be charged with one of the financial offences is not to frustrate the forfeiture procedure by shifting his assets abroad while the proceedings go on.
The Bill provides for Orders in Council to designate other countries whose forfeiture and restraint procedures will be enforceable in the United Kingdom. Those Orders in Council will be made as and when we manage to negotiate mutual enforcement agreements with other countries. We would hope to start that process as soon as the Bill becomes law. If funds can cross international barriers, the powers to intercept those funds must also cross those barriers. That is an obvious point that was also applied to drug trafficking cases and it is beginning to work out quite well.
Linked to the strong new proposals on finance are new powers for the police to carry out investigations into terrorism. The police may apply to a magistrate for a warrant to search for material on terrorism that does not include "special procedure" or "excluded" material or items subject to legal privilege. All those terms will be familiar to those who soldiered through the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in 1984. The police will also be able to apply to a circuit judge for an order requiring specified material to be produced, including bank records or bank transactions.
In Northern Ireland there will be a separate option available to the Secretary of State where he considers that a court-based application for a warrant or order would not be appropriate. He may then issue a "Secretary of State's Order", but only after applying a rigorous test to the case in question to prove that the RUC investigations would be prejudiced, that a person's safety would be endangered, or, on a broader plane, that the safety of Northern Ireland would be endangered. In weighing up such an application, the same considerations then apply to the Secretary of State's order as would apply to a court application.
The new measures, which hang together to an extent, are complex and far reaching. They aim to prevent the flow of funds to terrorist organisations. They will apply to the funding of terrorism here or abroad. I believe that if we get them through and get them working properly, they will greatly reduce the resources of terrorism and thus the ability of the terrorist to kill and maim.

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No. I have already given way to the hon. Lady and I am coming to the end of my speech. I am also aware that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have a long list of speakers. It is already nearly 6 pm and the debate must end at 10 pm.
Finally, let us consider the point of principle. I hope that I have set out in summary, but nevertheless across the board, a convincing case for limited, special powers to resist terrorism, and, in particular, for the specific powers in the Bill. Some of those powers are familiar from similar previous Bills, but the provisions that I have spent the past 15 minutes outlining are new.
In recent years this subject has stoked up a great deal of anger and heat across the Floor of the House. Is it really unrealistic to hope that we can do better than that today? I have deliberately presented the case in uncontroversial terms and I have deliberately refrained from making the


kind of debating points that Opposition right hon. and hon. Members know that I could make, perhaps to some effect.
In answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), we do not say that the Labour party, here or in the country, supports terrorism because it has voted against the predecessors of the Bill. We simply say that, in our view, those who oppose the Bill have not thought through the nature of terrorism. They have not thought through the techniques that are at the command of terrorists, nor have they thought through the means that society, through the House and the Government, need to prevent the spilling of blood and to deal effectively with those who have spilt it. That is our charge, and it is a serious one. I hope that it can be met tonight.
It would be a great strength to this country if we could proceed on this matter with general agreement. There really is no abuse of power in the proposals. Lord Colville's scrupulous examination of how the powers have hitherto been handled confirms that. There is nothing tyrannical or abusive in the new proposals on finance. It is a carefully thought out response to the efforts of our enemies. I very much hope that the Opposition will, if they can, take advantage of the fact that it is a new Bill and support us tonight.

6 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, reasserting its determination to defeat terrorism and believing that the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland can only be achieved with the wholehearted support of law-abiding citizens, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which undermines the rule of law on which the fight against terrorism must be based; and refuses to provide permanent powers either for a suspect to be detained for seven days without charge or for exclusion orders which effectively impose internal exile on British citizens, since such powers are wrong in principle and, by the offence they cause, aid rather than combat terrorists and terrorism; and further asserts its support for the measures to confiscate terrorist funds since these are both consistent with a free society and likely to provide practical results.
We invite the House to vote for our amendment which, if carried, would deny the Bill a Second Reading. We wish to do that as a demonstration of our irrevocable opposition to the continuation of powers that we believe to be wrong both in principle and in practice.
The way in which the Home Secretary moved the Second Reading enables me both to follow Mr. Speaker's injunction to be brief and to attempt to match the reasonable tone that the right hon. Gentleman employed in advocating his cause. He was right to say that the dispute between us—and dispute there is and will remain—concerns the best way to defeat terrorism and the obligations of a free Parliament in a democratic society. I am delighted that he put on record the fact that that is the nature of our disagreement, thus repudiating a Conservative research department brief—"AH(88)37 enquiries to Steven Brindle"—which was prepared for the debate and which made a quite different point.
I shall attempt to match the right hon. Gentleman's tone of logic and reason by saying, categorically, that in a free society it is wrong in principle to detain a suspect for seven days without charge and that it is wrong in a democracy to oblige a man or a woman, through the use of exclusion orders, to live in parts of the country

stipulated by the Government. The application of both those measures is justified by those who advocate them, as they were justified by the Home Secretary today, as an undesirable but necessary encroachment on our liberties. To describe such powers as undesirable is grossly to understate the proper objections to such denials of our traditional freedom. To describe them as necessary misunderstands the way—and it is the only way—in which the war against terrorists and terrorism can be won.

Mr. Derek Conway: I do not want to raise the heat of the debate so early in our proceedings, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain why twice as many people were detained under the legislation during the five years of the Government of whom he was a member than have been detained while the Conservative Government have been in office?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall attempt to reach out across the Floor and conduct the debate in the way in which I believe that it should be conducted. I accept that I was a member of the Cabinet that supported the continuation of the prevention of terrorism legislation. If I so choose, I could construct arguments to show that matters were different then from now. However, that is not the point that I wish to make tonight. I believe that my Government were mistaken at that time, but the fact that we were wrong then is no justification for being wrong now. There are occasions when it is sensible for politicians to say that what we did 10 years ago was wrong based on present evidence. Indeed, I said just that about an immigration matter dating back to 1967, and I say it about this Bill. If we feel able to say that, we are more likely to have a rational debate than if we were required to defend everything that we have done in the past.
I could mention special considerations not about terrorism in general, but as it is associated with Northern Ireland. It was to defeat the Northern Ireland terrorists that the measures were introduced and have been continued. They are punitive after 13 years of application—and that is the difference—and are no longer intended to meet a brief emergency, but to be an accumulative and permanent part of our legislation. Their present effect is the reverse of the original intention. At that time no one said that the purpose was to defeat terrorism in the way that it is now described by the Home Secretary. The measures were designed to convince the British people that the Government of the day were acting robustly in response to the appalling Birmingham bombings. They were also designed—and this was said publicly—to protect the Irish population living in the United Kingdom against a potential backlash. Now, they are said to have a crucial part to play in the war against terrorism.
The war against terrorism will be won only by the wholehearted support of the law-abiding population, including and especially the law-abiding population in Northern Ireland. Both seven-day detention and exclusion orders alienate and antagonise men and women whose assistance we need. If the Bill becomes law, it will impede rather than assist the defeat of terrorism and the suppression of terror that we all seek.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was a junior member of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. He does less than justice to the motives of that Government who brought forward the legislation in response to the Birmingham bombings by


suggesting that it was simply to demonstrate an attitude of robustness to the troubles. He underrates the understanding of that Government that the measures, in themselves, would have a material effect on preventing terrorism—a view that was upheld two years later.

Mr. Hattersley: As I said, these matters were not whispered about in the Corridors that the hon. Gentleman and I habituated at that time—they were fully aired in debate. I am not putting words into people's mouths, imagining what they said to me, or interpreting what might have been their motives. The Government's views were made clear in debate and I am not in any way describing them as discreditable. They had to meet the position at the time, but the passage of time has changed the position.
The measures that the Home Secretary proposes to make permanent are likely to alienate the very men and women whom we need to support us. They will make the right hon. Gentleman's task harder. We are prepared to support those measures that appear to have a practical application and to be consistent with the rules of a free society. Therefore, in Committee we will support clause 9 which makes it an offence to solicit, receive, or accept contributions of money or other property intended to finance or support terrorism. There are some legitimate concerns even about that clause. The libertarians are concerned about the way in which the powers will be used. In some circumstances, the onus of proof will be upon the suspect. If he is to be acquitted, he will have to demonstrate that the money or property under investigation was not intended to finance terrorism.
I do not minimise the danger of requiring a suspect, innocent under the law, to prove innocence. I regret that this is the second time since the general election that it has been necessary—and I deliberately use that phrase—to switch the onus of proof so that innocent men and women are required to demonstrate that they have committed no offence. I believe, as I believed when the House debated the provisions to prohibit the carrying of offensive weapons, that when the need is desperate, desperate measures are justified to meet it. The power to prosecute those who financially assist terrorism and the matching power under clause 13 to confiscate funds used for terrorist purposes possess an advantage not enjoyed by other parts of the Bill. It will have a practical and positive effect and is consistent with the rule of law. We shall, therefore, support it.
On the other hand, part II, which deals with the power to make exclusion orders, will have quite the opposite effect. It is for that reason, almost as much as for the denial of the basic liberties which it involves, that we shall oppose it. A good deal has been heard about Lord Colville. The Home Secretary mentioned him today, and no doubt we shall hear more as the debate continues. I join the Home Secretary in expressing thanks for the meticulous work that has been carried out; but it is, I fear, Lord Colville's fate to be quoted and most admired when his conclusions coincide with those of the people who quote him. Lord Colville, let us not forget, recommended the abolition of exclusion orders. Sir Cyril Philips, who also examined prevention of terrorism legislation at the Home Secretary's request, made the same recommendation, and the Attorney-General in the Government who introduced the

orders described them as "tantamount to internal exile". An examination of Lord Colville's statistics on this subject shows how accurate that description is.
A majority of the men and women excluded from Great Britain have been convicted of no offence. They are innocent under the law, yet they are exiled to Northern Ireland or to Ireland. We do not know—we are not told and we are told that we cannot know—the reason for their exclusion, but we are told that the right to appeal to the Secretary of State's advisers should reassure us that exclusions, in Lord Colville's words,
are only enforced when they are absolutely essential".
Will the Minister who replies give us even a hint of the criteria by which it is judged absolutely necessary to exclude men or women from this country? Such criteria must involve the inability to prosecute these men and women for offences or proposed offences under the law. I understand, for instance, that members of an Irish folk dance society were prevented from making a reciprocal visit to Wales by the application of exclusion powers. A dozen jokes immediately come to mind, but I fear that the joke is on Great Britain as the IRA asks its rhetorical questions about British respect for Ireland, Irish men and the rule of law as it is applied to them.
It is equally true that many members of the majority community in Northern Ireland find exclusion orders offensive. The idea that terrorists can be excluded from the mainland of the United Kingdom and be required to live in the six counties of the north is wholly inconsistent with the idea that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and should be treated like other parts of it. There is much resentment at the idea of Northern Ireland being used as a repository for terrorists, who are left free to walk the streets of Belfast and Derry but not to walk the streets of Birmingham or Derby.
I admit at once that the resentment caused in the majority community is nothing compared with that felt by innocent Irish men and women who, because of part IV, clause 16, risk being treated like suspects if they visit Britain. The system on which port controls are based—cards filled in by a proportion of randomly selected passengers—is interpreted by many Irish passengers as a sign that general suspicion hangs over the whole country. All hon. Members who represent large numbers of Irish constituents know how their relatives feel about the checks to which they are subjected. They think that the checks are carried out merely because of their Irish origins and accents. I do not claim that their resentment drives them into the arms of the IRA—they are far too honest and sensible for that—but it erodes the feeling of wholehearted support for the rule of law which is essential if the war against terrorism is to be won.
Our complaint against the exclusion orders is based on the same principle as our complaint against detention: coercive powers are applied to men and women who have been convicted of no offence. The common response—I was going to say the weak-minded response—to this complaint is that because of the nature of terrorism in general and Northern Ireland terrorism in particular normal judicial conviction is often impossible. Translated into honest English, that amounts to the assertion that in some situations policemen and politicians must be allowed to override the rule of law, the necessity for evidence, the obligation to convince a jury, the duty to persuade a judge of the propriety of the proceedings and the discipline of justifying all those actions in public. With detention orders


—part IV—all those aspects of proper judicial process are missing, and that is not acceptable to the Opposition. We have argued against it for seven years and now our opposition, at least to the length of detention, has been echoed by democratic world opinion as represented by the European convention on human rights to which this country is a party.

Mr. Hurd: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to go down a wrong path. It is not the length of detention that is the matter between us and the court—in many European countries people are detained for much longer than seven days. The question is whether there should be recourse to judicial proceedings.

Mr. Hattersley: I am referring to the length of detention under this process without charge and trial. I shall continue to describe such detention as the result of Executive, not judicial, action; and the length of detention as well as its method is crucial.
The Home Secretary's response to the decision by the European Court of Human Rights was wholly unsatisfactory. The Government have been found guilty by a court whose powers they endorse and whose jurisdiction they accept. It is the Government's clear duty to accept the ruling and abandon the practice of imposing detention without charge or trial. I do not want to heighten the temperature of the debate, but I must say that the Government's refusal immediately to accept the ruling of the court shows their true relationship with the rule of law, both national and international. From the sinking of the Belgrano to the police raid on the BBC's Scottish studios the Government have shown that they support the rule of law when it is convenient for them to do so.
The Home Secretary should have made an announcement about the Government's intentions today—whatever they may be. His failure to do so naturally and inevitably raises the fear that the Government intend, once the debate is over and the Irish extradition treaty is out of the way, to apply for a derogation on the wholly spurious ground, that the IRA is a threat to national security throughout the United Kingdom—the only terms on which a derogation is possible.
To claim that the IRA is a threat to national security throughout the United Kingdom is to elevate it so far beyond its real importance that that provides it with a victory in itself. Were the Home Secretary to have recourse to that alternative, the IRA's greatest victory would be won in the propaganda war. I can offer the right hon. Gentleman the headline now: "Britain defies human rights court". That message would reverberate throughout Northern Ireland and the republican clubs of North America.
The Home Secretary has told us that he will announce the Government's response to the European Court's ruling before the Bill's Committee stage is over. He said that he wanted proper time to give appropriate judicial consideration to what is a difficult problem. Exactly the same argument was used to me in Dublin a week ago, when I was pressing for the early extradition of Mr. Ryan. Leaving that aside, it is wholly unacceptable, and should be unacceptable to the House, to be told that we shall be given the Government's view on how they will, or might, amend the crucial aspect of the Bill before the Committee stage is over. The Government's intention must be announced before the Committee begins, and it must be

announced to the House. I trust that if they refuse to make such an announcement the Chair will protect us against such a clear abuse.
I have tried as best I can to advance the pragmatic arguments against the Government's proposals, which will alienate the support that we need and provide our enemies with a propaganda victory. These pragmatic arguments against the Government's intentions are overwhelming. But the argument in principle is equally irresistible. The extent of the offence against our traditional liberties can be demonstrated simply by stating last year's figures. In 1987. 184 men and women were detained in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and 17 were charged with committing an offence either under that Act or under other legislation. Some of those charged might have been acquitted, but at least 104 were innocent under the law. However, they were held in custody by Executive authority.
In Northern Ireland during the same period 1,479 men and women were detained and only 343 were charged with any offence. That means that throughout the United Kingdom 1,663 men and women against whom no charge could be laid, let alone sustained, were detained in custody by Executive action. It is not altogether surprising that Lord Colville reported:
I have been told that there are worrying indications in the level of charges brought as a proportion of detentions made under the Act.
Whoever expressed the worries, I fear that it was not the Government because when they were arraigned before the European Court they attempted to justify holding a suspect without charge for up to seven days on the most spurious ground imaginable. The Government's case submitted to the European Court is the most disturbing of all the possible answers. I shall read from the Government's submission which they are reported to have made to the court to justify prolonged detention not endorsed by courts. They insisted that they could not make the necessary evidence available and said, "If it is produced,"—that is, the evidence—
there is a strong risk of compromising the source of information—perhaps even with fatal consequences. If it is not produced, there is an equally real risk that terrorists will go free notwithstanding the existence of evidence against them.
In simple language, that means that, despite the lack of evidence to warrant a formal charge, politicians and policemen believing a detainee to be guilty can hold him in the hope of drumming up enough information to make a formal charge possible.

Mr. Conway: Reasonable suspicion.

Mr. Hattersley: If there is reasonable suspicion a person can be taken to court. That is the case that we are struggling to make. Our case is that if it is possible to take a man or woman to court, that should be done. If it is not possible, it is the beginning of a most dangerous slippery slope for politicians and policemen to say, "We may not be able to convict them under the normal process but because we know that they are guilty we shall take special measures."

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would weigh what he says against the facts. I shall give him an example. The people who exploded the bomb on the Ballygawley road that killed eight of our young soldiers and injured many


more had been brought in for questioning again and again because high-grade intelligence had shown that they were guilty of terrorist offences. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately for the cause of justice—the courts require greater proof than simple high-grade intelligence. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the people to whom I refer were, within a short time of the bus bombing, killed by troops as they carried out another act of terrorism. He must weigh the detention of suspected terrorists against the vast number of people—2,800—who have died in Northern Ireland during the present troubles.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I appreciate that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for doing so. I do. not minimise the strength and passion of the hon. Gentleman's question and I shall answer him in two ways.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) may not have heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and I propose to answer that first. My first point—and I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will not regard me as unacceptably idealistic in making it—is about my opposition to and terror of the concept of high-grade intelligence being used to say that a man or woman is guilty. If it is not information that can convict in a free, open and democratic court, it should not be used outside such a court. I understand the pressures to accept such a system, but if we begin to accept it we shall begin to accept a view of justice and democracy that should be unacceptable despite the price that has to be paid.
My second point is a pragmatic one. I am aware, as hon. Members must be aware, that to defeat for ever terrorism and terrorists—which is our mutual objective—we must have the overwhelming support of the majority of the law-abiding minority population in Northern Ireland. Acting outside the judicial system by saying that security reports may convict a person even though the courts could not and that he will be detained or excluded makes success over terrorism further away than it would be were we able to carry the whole majority population with us.
I have heard many questions about British justice and the way that it is applied in Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I have done my best to say what I believe, that British justice is fair and even-handed and that normally, with the inevitable human exceptions, does what is right and proper. However, we have to create that impression in sceptical minds and the idea of convicting people without using the courts is one of the ways in which we will undermine confidence in British law. That confidence is essential to the defeat of terrorism and without it terrorism will not be defeated.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way, not least because other hon. Members want to speak.
Less than 22 per cent. of men and women held in detention by Executive action are charged and taken to court. That demonstrates a gross infringement of the

liberties of Britain. More important, there is a profound and fundamental danger in policemen and politicians acting as though they know that a man or woman is guilty even though the guilt cannot be proved in court. Without proof acceptable under the law, men and women are innocent and must be treated accordingly, but under this legislation they may be kept in prison for up to seven days. Paragraph 36 of Lord Colville's report says:
The reasons adduced by the police for an extension"—
from the original 48 hours to perhaps seven days—
included a few alibi enquiries, some requests for an identity parade and a substantial number of forensic investigations.
Those things in themselves are not arguments for using special power. All those procedures are features of the normal system of criminal justice. Lord Colville also said that "broadly" application for detention
was based on suspicion of involvement in a particular crime".
That is what normally results in prosecution under the criminal law. I shall give a non-contentious example that I gave when we last debated this. I am open to convincing that it is my ignorance that makes me incapable of understanding it, but I do not understand why the persons convicted of the attempted murder of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could not have been prosecuted under our normal criminal law. People loitering in private gardens with no reason or purpose for being there are arrested every day, held in custody and their cases pursued.
Dr. Maire O'Shea, an elderly psychologist in my constituency, was arrested under the Act, charged and acquitted. Nobody who looked at the charge sheet could doubt for a moment that she could have been prosecuted in the normal way. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will explain exactly the point that was made by the Home Secretary. He told us about a policeman shot at close range and a suspect held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and eventually convicted.

Mr. Hurd: He was held for seven days.

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, held for seven days.
What happens in the United Kingdom if a policeman is shot at close range, not by a member of the IRA but by a bank robber? The idea that it is necessary to have special powers to convict a man who shoots a policeman does not bear close analysis. But, in the spirit of rational debate which the Home Secretary urged us to follow, I am open to conviction when the Minister replies.
There are other explanations of why the processes of normal justice are unnecessarily bypassed in detention cases. One certainly applied to the case of Dr. Maire O'Shea. Detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act was the easy way to facilitate her arrest and to begin prosecution. But another reason, which many people fear is why detention without subsequent prosecution is so widespread, is far more sinister. Detention without normal access to a solicitor or the full use of custody sheets is a way of obtaining information from innocent men and women who may have a passing, peripheral, innocent association with terrorism. That is an intolerable use of the powers.
On detention, the Government seem to believe that one safeguard should satisfy us. That is the need to obtain the Secretary of State's fiat if detention is to be extended beyond 48 hours. I mean no disrespect to the Home


Secretary or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when I say that they are wholly unsuited to the task. It is not the job of a politician to decide, on Executive authority, that a man or a woman who has not been before the courts can be held in detention for a further five days. If the job must be done at all, it is a job for the judges.
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, special rules apply to terrorist suspects. They can be held for 48 rather than 36 hours without access to a solicitor. Yesterday The Guardian argued that the law should he amended to allow terrorist suspects to be held, as now, for 48 hours on the authority of the police alone and that judicial agreement should be required for their further detention after that time.
I do not advocate that as the solution to the Home Secretary's dilemma. I believe that the European Court ruling should be accepted in toto. But if the right hon. Gentleman will not go that far, what is the possible objection to the judicial review that The Guardian suggested yesterday? Some people fear that it will involve the judiciary in Executive decisions. That argument is wholly wrong. Judges would be brought in to protect us from Ministers usurping the judges' proper role. I assume that no one believes that a judge sitting in camera would run to the IRA with the evidence that the police provided to justify the extra five days' detention. The only conclusion that can sensibly be drawn is that the Government want to detain men and women for that extra period on evidence and on a basis of which the judiciary would not approve. That is wrong in principle and is unlikely to help in the war against terrorism.
If we are to defeat terrorism, as every Member of the House wants, we must never be seen to adopt tactics or policies that provide terrorists with the opportunity to claim, here or abroad, that the democratic processes are denied to them and that violence has become their only avenue of expression.
At the time of the atrocity in Enniskillen, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said with great courage that to oppose the reintroduction of internment, which many Conservative Members demanded then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They say, "Hear, hear." That confirms my point.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: It was Labour Members who said that. The right hon. Gentleman is deaf as well as daft.

Mr. Hattersley: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said with great courage that the reintroduction of internment without trial would act as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA. The Opposition agreed with and supported him. We believe that the Bill will have the same effect. That is why we shall vote tonight for the reasoned amendment, which if passed would deny the Bill a Second Reading. That is why, if the Bill is not drastically altered in Committee, we shall vote against it on Third Reading.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish that the position in Northern Ireland could be described as normal. The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has been dealing with normal circumstances, but they are far from normal in Northern Ireland.
I give two simple illustrations, and I wonder how hon. Members would feel if this happened in their constituencies. Last Saturday week, my telephone rang at 12.30 am. A distraught parent was on the other end of the phone saying, "We have been burned out for the second time. The shed in our farmyard, which contains about 1,000 tonnes of potatoes, has been put to the torch. We telephoned the Antrim police at 7 o'clock when it happened. At half-past 11 the sergeant telephoned us and said that he could not come out until the morning. When the police arrived in the morning, they said that they were unable to enter our area without Army backing, so if anything happened during the hours of darkness they could give us no protection." That was not on the border; it was not in Crossmaglen; it was two miles from Belfast airport. It is not normal that people can be burned out, yet the police can do nothing for them in the hours of darkness.
The second example is the tragedy on the Ballygawley-Omagh road. I was in the area last week. The road is again closed to police and Army vehicles. It was closed six months before the tragedy, and it is closed again. It is practically a no-go area for the police, but it is an all-go area for the IRA. That is not normal. In abnormal circumstances, unpleasant things must be done that ordinary people do not like and that I personally do not like, but they are necessary to defend lives and to look after people's safety.
During the three to four years before 1985, the graph of violence in Northern Ireland was going down. There was less violence, less murder and less terrorist activity. Then in 1985 the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed and immediately there was an upward spiral in violence.
Replying to yesterday evening's debate, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said:
In a democracy, political change must come as a consequence of discussion and through the ballot box."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 101.]
The Anglo-Irish Agreement did not come about as a result of discussion amongst the people of Northern Ireland; nor did it come through the ballot box. From the day that it was signed, the upward spiral recommenced.
Let us consider the tragic figures. In 1985 there were 54 killings. This year, until 6 December, there have been 91. The figure has almost doubled. In 1985 the RUC lost 14 members. This year it has lost four. In 1985 the RUCR lost nine members. It has lost two members this year. In 1985 two members of the British Army were killed. This year 21 have been killed. In 1985 four members of the UDR were killed, this year 11. In 1985, 25 members of the general public were killed, and so far this year 53 have died. We have now been warned by the Chief Constable of the RUC that there will be horrific murders and IRA violence up to Christmas. We do not know what lies ahead for the people of Northern Ireland.
I want to present some figures to the House tonight which will be of much interest to Opposition Members because they were not prepared by a Unionist. They were put before the SDLP annual conference by that party's leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is not in the Chamber at the moment. I will quote from a typescript of the speech that he made to his party. No one can say that these are Unionist prepared statistics to put a gloss on the situation. The statistics were given by the leader of the SDLP. Around this place I find people who


seem to think that the UDR is concerned with shooting and killing Roman Catholics and that the RUC is engaged consistently in an anti-Roman Catholic campaign.
The leader of the SDLP said, when he addressed his party conference on 26 November:
Up till last Saturday 2,705 people have died in the 20-year period of the current troubles … who killed all these people?
His answer was:
The statistics are devastating. 44 per cent. were killed by the provisional IRA and 18 per cent. by their fellow travelling 'republican' paramilitaries.
That makes 62 per cent. killed by the IRA and their fellow travellers.
27 per cent. were killed by Loyalists. 10 per cent. were killed by the British Army. 2 per cent. were killed by the RUC and 0·28 per cent. by the UDR. In short people describing themselves as Irish republicans have killed 6 times as many human beings as the British army, 30 times as many as the RUC and 250 times as many as the UDR. And wait. One of their main claims"—
referring to the IRA—
is that they are the defenders of the Catholic community. Of the 1,194 members of the Catholic community who died, 46 per cent. were killed by Loyalist paramilitaries, 37 per cent. by people describing themselves as republicans and 17 per cent. by the security forces. And in the last 10 years since 1 January 1978, of the 306 members of the Catholic community who have lost their lives, 112 have been killed by people describing themselves as republicans … In the last 20 years republicans have killed more than twice as many Catholics as the security forces and in the last 10 years have killed more than the Loyalists.
Those are the facts as the hon. Member for Foyle sees them and as he presented them to his party conference. That puts a different slant upon what is propagated in this country about the position in Northern Ireland.
As I consider those figures, I am bound to ask why there is such agitation to get the UDR and the RUC off the roads of Ulster when their term of killing is nothing compared with the other people mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle in his representation to his party conference.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I will not give way because I wish to be brief and the hour is late. No doubt the hon. Lady will be able to make her point as effectively as she usually does.
Those are the facts as seen by us. I have referred to personal happenings in my constituency and to the representations made by the leader of the SDLP. What can we do in that situation? We must remember that we have to show that there is a will in the Government and in this House to deal effectively and adequately with the problem. I will not argue the case for the great deterrent of hanging. I am convinced that capital crimes of this nature should receive capital punishment, and I have argued that in this House before.
I will not dwell on the question of Executive detention. However, I was amazed that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that the Home Secretary, or a Cabinet Minister, does not have the right or knowledge to detain people executively. During the war the Home Secretary had the sole right to detain. Executive detention is a weapon in the armoury of any democratic Government, and it is used by democratic Governments in emergencies.
We also hear much in this House about the Irish Republic. It would be interesting for the House to know that the same kind of law—seven days detention—is on the Irish Republic's statute book. The Government of the Irish Republic will also have to have a derogation or they will have to drop their legislation. That fact has not been announced by Mr. Haughey. He has not made a declaration about what he is going to do.
In 1976, during a state of emergency—which still exists—declared by the Dail, legislation on detention was passed. When it was no longer used after 12 months, section 2 gave the Irish Government authority to bring in that detention up to seven days. The Irish Republic has the same law on its statute book as we have on ours, a law which some people try to tell us will antagonise the South of Ireland and those who support the South of Ireland. The Irish Republic has such a law on its own statute book, so it should clean up its own house before telling this House how it should act.
We read in the papers that there is uproar from the South of Ireland about the fact that remission will be cut. One fifth of terrorist prisoners released in 1984 have committed a further scheduled offence within two years. If people return to crime within two years of being released as a result of a 50 per cent. cut in their prison sentence, they deserve to have to serve out the rest of that sentence when they are apprehended after committing another criminal offence. The figures also show that one quarter of non-terrorist prisoners committed a scheduled offence within two years of release. The deterrent and the punishment must fit the crime.
The situation in Northern Ireland is serious and horrific. I spoke to an hon. Member from Northern Ireland today and he said, "Ian, do you worry when the phone rings?" I said, "Of course I do." He said, "That's how I feel because I don't know what the news will be." Therefore, I believe that the Bill can help.
I know that it is an infringement of civil liberties to take away a person's liberty for seven days. However, if a person is innocent of a crime, and if he can stand up to four days of interrogation, he can stand up to seven days or 14 days of interrogation.

Ms. Short: That is not true.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I know a little about the matter because I live in Northern Ireland and I know about it from both sides of the community.
I have always supported the police, but that does not mean that I support actions by police officers that are contrary to the law. If people are detained for seven days, their rights should be defended when they are being interrogated. Nobody should be abused, cursed or threatened and family matters that are immaterial to the interrogation should not be introduced. Let me give an illustration.
A young man was detained recently. His father had hanged himself, so there was tragedy at home. The police officer who interrogated him said, "You'll be at the end of the rope like your father." Such language should not be used in interrogation. The Minister should consider such incidents carefully. I am glad that we have an independent police complaints board and I have taken the case that I have just mentioned, and many others, to it. Some members of the divisional mobile support unit in Northern Ireland need to realise that they cannot treat people in that


disgraceful way even though they have been lawfully arrested and detained in detention centres. Such abuses must cease.
I shall lend my support to the principle of the Bill. I trust that the House will acknowledge the reasons why we are discussing these matters. The sooner that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is put on ice, the sooner that it ceases to be implemented, and the sooner that the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland get round the table, the better it will be for everyone concerned. There will be no way forward until the constitutional parties discuss Northern Ireland together in such a way that we can find an agreement that will supersede the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is flawed and has failed. We must bring constitutional and political hope to the people of Northern Ireland. That is my plea to the House tonight.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Bill is based on the review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 that was carried out by Lord Colville between April and November 1987. He was able to undertake that review in the light of the experience that he had acquired when he reviewed the operation of the Act in 1986. Therefore, the noble Lord is not unfamiliar with the Act when he tells us:
I fully believe that there is a continuing need for special legislation against terrorism".
Those of us who have been privileged to make submissions to Lord Colville have been impressed by his deep understanding of the needs of our nation, threatened as it is by both home-grown and international terrorism.
Yet we are equally aware of Lord Colville's anxiety to ensure that we, as a nation, do not become hedged in by harsh and rigorous law, which would in itself become oppressive. No one who loves and values freedom and democracy would wish to see any legislation on the statute book that would diminish or devalue those ideals.
But we live in a world where the shadow of the great and ugly wars of yesteryear has been superseded by the mean but equally ugly spectre of terrorist violence. Some people—I admit to being one of them—believe that today's widespread terrorism, which pervades virtually every corner of the globe, constitutes the third world war. Although I share Lord Colville's convictions, I cannot claim to do so on the basis either of academic study or of professional training in legal matters. I share his convictions because of 20 years of practical experience of having lived cheek by jowl with the reality of terrorism and having been obliged, both as a soldier and as a politician, to witness—often at first hand—the tragedy and suffering that have been inflicted on thousands of citizens of the United Kingdom by ruthless and brutal assassins.
It is right that the House should examine carefully the provisions in the Bill. However, it should do so with the conviction that only by ensuring and maintaining the democratic integrity of our whole community can it hope to promote the civil rights of individual citizens. The United Kingdom is facing political and economic terrorism, such as that carried on by the IRA, so we all have a responsibility to differentiate between the immediate luxury of philosophical libertarianism and the long-term benefits of belonging to a properly free and fearless society.
The Bill is particularly important in so far as it is a major piece of legislation that addresses the threat of Irish

Republican terrorism without the Government of the Irish Republic having the right to influence its form and format as they have done with exclusively Northern Ireland legislation.
Unfortunately, the folly of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has meant that, for example, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 has become a political football. The Irish Republic exercises the authority given to it through the Anglo-Irish Conference to question, and more often than not dispute, any measure that might be considered to oppose the terrorism of the IRA. Sadly—I sincerely wish it was otherwise—the SDLP and the Irish Government have opposed as means to inhibit IRA violence the following measures: capital punishment; the proscription of Sinn Fein; selective internment; an anti-violence pledge for candidates for election; identity cards; the removal of the 50 per cent. automatic remission from prison sentences for terrorism; the banning of Sinn Fein from the airwaves; and the change in the matter of the right to silence.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: In a moment.
The list is much longer. It could even include opposition to protective barriers outside vulnerable police stations such as the Strand road station in Londonderry and to look-out posts manned by the Army in south Armagh.
It is well known that I would not support all the measures that I have mentioned, but to reject them all out of hand surely verges on the malicious and could give considerable comfort to the terrorist.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way since he referred to my party specifically in his panegyric. Will he tell me exactly where he and the members of his party were when the public order legislation was going through the House? Will he have the good grace to tell us why they did not vote for that legislation? Just to keep the record straight, will he recognise the fact that I was the only Member of the House from Northern Ireland to vote for the legislation, in the face of our colleagues on the Labour Benches who voted against it? The hon. Gentleman should now have the good grace to put the record fully straight. He should also point out—as I will do later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that I welcome very much—I shall expand upon this—the part of the legislation dealing with racketeering. Indeed, I sought such a measure long before it was considered for legislation in the House.

Mr. Maginnis: We did not vote for the public order legislation because it was entirely different from the legislation that applied to Great Britain, but was in line with aspects of proposed legislation which was thrown out for Great Britain.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Maginnis: No, I am sorry—

Mr. Mallon: I would thank the hon. Gentleman for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.

Mr. Maginnis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point. [Interruption.] I hope that I have answered it fully.


I was talking about the attitude of the SDLP and the Irish Government to virtually every proposed measure that is designed to inhibit or prevent terrorism. This House has seen the obstructive attitude of the Government of the Irish Republic in the case of Father Ryan, a man who has acquired a reputation as an international terrorist. The House has seen the destructive attitude of that same Government in its campaign against the British court system, not only or indeed mainly in Northern Ireland, but here in Great Britain.
To put it bluntly, where there is doubt about international co-operation in the fight against terrorism—surely there are grave doubts—we must, as legislators, ensure that we meet our responsibility to the nation.
Bearing in mind your request for brief speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I felt that on the Second Reading of this Bill it was appropriate to address the principle rather than the detail. That is not to imply that my party accepts the details because the opposite is the case, but it would take too long to deal with, for example, the Home Secretary's somewhat flawed and somewhat naive reasoning on the matter of terrorist funding and how it might be prevented or hindered.
Ulster Unionists will hope to table amendments to improve the effectiveness of the Bill as it progresses through its various stages. Indeed, we hope to have the opportunity to play a full part in the consideration of the Bill at each stage. Tonight we will, as we did last night on the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, vote for this Bill in principle.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seemed very pleased with himself when he resumed his seat. He had made a speech against the Bill to please the half of his party that wants to see no anti-IRA measures passed, and a speech in support of some parts of the Bill to please those of his party who believe that terrorism has to be opposed by legislation and by a united approach across the Chamber. However, the British public will be thoroughly unimpressed by his performance. They will have heard with amazement his assertion, which I hope the media will cover tomorrow, that the IRA is not a threat to the British nation as a whole. The public will show what they think of that contemptible and mealy-mouthed performance at their first opportunity, which will be at Epping Forest and the Euro constituency of Hampshire, Central next Thursday.
On 8 March 1973 I was leaving court at the Old Bailey when a bomb went off outside the building, leaving a great deal of devastation. I arrived at the House of Commons one morning minutes after a bomb had blown out the north window in Westminster Hall and destroyed the secretaries' offices. In 1979 I left the Car Park minutes before Airey Neave was blown to pieces by a terrorist bomb. I was with the Israeli ambassador shortly before he attended a function at the Dorchester and had half his brain blown out and became, as he still is, a paralysed relic of his former self.
Many of us in this place have had the experience of our parliamentary and political friends being assassinated or of attempts being made on their lives by terrorists. Many

of us were living in London during the 1970s when bombs went off, killing and maiming hundreds of people in Hyde park; in the Green park Underground station; at Harrods; and at the Woolwich arsenal. There were also the bombings at Guildford and Birmingham. Those are some examples from just Britain alone.
In 1981, there were 3,618 terrorists incidents worldwide. By 1984 that figure had risen to 6,653, and the number continues to grow—

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: I shall give way when I have finished this.
In that year there were 3,324 bombings; 1,123 assassination attempts or assassinations; 1,341 arson or incendiary attacks. The murder, the maiming, the destruction and the misery goes on. There are 3,000 dead in Northern Ireland, including soldiers, policemen, civilians and women.
The terrorist threat continues. This year there has been the hijacking of the Kuwaiti Airlines jet; the foiled car bomb attack in Gibraltar; the cowardly murder of the British service man in the Netherlands. The bombs, the bullets and the destruction of the men of violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere goes on and on.

Ms. Short: Obviously we agree that that is a catalogue of tragedy and we all want to bring it to an end and avoid it. However, the prevention of terrorism legislation has been on the statute book for most of the period that the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, so it clearly is not preventing terrorism. That is our argument. Indeed, that legislation is likely to make some people more likely to support that kind of activity. That is our case. Of course, we all deplore the deaths.

Mr. Lawrence: We know that that is the hon. Lady's case and that several of her hon. Friends, who will vote against the Bill, have voted against such measures consistently when they have been introduced to the House. Indeed, they voted against such measures when they were introduced by the Labour Government in 1974 and 1976. We know that some people share that view, but the question is: what will end the murder and the maiming? Will cynical deals with terrorists by frightened Governments end it? Will weak Governments refusing to co-operate with information and action ever conquer terrorism? Will weak laws, half-heartedly enforced, achieve that end, or the wringing of hands, accompanied by weasel words? Will opposition to sensible Prevention of Terrorism Bills, showing that Britain is not united in its determination to root out this spreading virus, destroy terrorism? No. Only tough, determined, united, single-minded measures can possibly stop this terrible virus of international terrorism.
The first requisite is a Prevention of Terrorism Act that gives to the security forces the necessary powers to counter terrorism. We have such an Act, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, though Labour opposes it and is pledged to repeal it. Because of that Act, the IRA bombing campaign of British resorts in June 1985 was thwarted. Because of that Act, 54 people who were detained for Irish terrorism and 18 people who were detained for international terrorism have been charged with offences such as possessing explosives or conspiring to endanger life. Fifty-three out of 77 of the cases that


came for trial in 1988 were found guilty, and these people were sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment under the legislation. How absurd it is to suggest that it has played no part in the control of terrorism.
What is needed is this power to proscribe terrorist organisations and to exclude from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as a purely preventive measure, those who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. We need this power to arrest and detain for up to seven days and this power to control the movement of passengers in and out of the United Kingdom. The prevention of terrorism legislation has struck hard at the terrorists and has helped to make the United Kingdom a safer place, whatever the hon. Member for Ladywood may say.
All of those who are determined that the fight against terrorism ought to be strengthened, not weakened, will welcome the powers in the Bill. They will welcome the power that strikes at the heart of terrorism—the fund— raising—by confiscating the assets of terrorist organisations, stopping the laundering of their assets and requiring the forfeiture of terrorists' possessions. We welcome the wider power that is to he given to the police to apply to the courts for search warrants and orders requiring specific materials to be produced and the power to apply to the Secretary of State for warrants in Northern Ireland when the police have reason to suspect that certain offences are likely to be committed or are being committed. We welcome the changes in the remission arrangements that will do much to increase the element of deterrence.
So great is our concern, however, that civil liberties should be curtailed to the least possible degree that even here, in dealing with the abominable crimes of terrorism, we control the powers of the police by obliging detention for more than 48 hours to be reviewed, and we maintain parliamentary control by requiring the new Act to be debated and renewed in this place and the other place annually. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concedes, there will have to be further amendment as a result of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against detention for interrogation for longer than four days.
The question must be asked: why do the police need more than four days? The answer can be simply given: because forensic testing these days is a very detailed process that requires a great deal of diligent care, because alibis sometimes need to be checked thoroughly—and that takes days—and because other people are sometimes arrested and new information is brought that has to be used in the process of interrogation.
The facts are that over 80 per cent. of those who were detained in 1988 for terrorist offences were either released or charged within five days and that, of the other 20 per cent., half were charged with serious offences, 16 were charged with murder and eight with attempted murder. The police simply must have all the powers that they need and the time to exercise those powers, or terrorism will not be defeated.
The next question is what the Government should do about it. My guess is that most people in this country would say, "What on earth is a court of foreign judges, brought up under a very different legal system and without the United Kingdom's terrible experience of unremitting terrorism, doing telling us what we may or may not do, particularly since we always give terrorists a fairer trial than terrorists ever give their victims?" But the

Government will not take that over-simplistic stand. They will want—and they will be supported by most hon. Members—to keep us within the restrictions of the European convention on human rights, if at all possible—which, of course, it is.
That leaves two options. First, we could derogate from the ruling of the court on the ground that the powers are needed because of the threat posed by terrorism to the life of the nation. Secondly, we could compromise by rejecting the ruling, but we could meet the spirit behind it by requiring a judicial element—a High Court or circuit judge, or a magistrate, or a tribunal of judges—to consider any police applications to extend the interrogation time beyond four days.
Derogation is, in my view, the least acceptable of those alternatives. When we derogate, although we act within the system, we make no concession to the civil liberties of the suspect, who might be innocent. We reject the ruling out of hand, although we do it politely within the terms of the convention. It would be more acceptable to many of us to require a judicial element—a judge, if there is no problem of availability, or a stipendiary magistrate, if that is more practicable. But what is needed is that the public should have confidence that injustice is not being done by the procedures. I think that a judicial element would meet that requirement.
There is the problem that defence challenges to police requests might bring out into the open highly sensitive material. That is a possibility. As always, the police will have to decide whether it is important enough to the success of their application to speak of such material. lf, however, such hearings were in camera, as are applications for bail before a judge in chambers, there is less likelihood that such statements would get into the public arena. It is only a week since the ruling. The Government will need, and the House will support their request for, time to consider these matters.
That is the first requisite in dealing with terrorism—a Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The second requisite for a tough and effective campaign against terrorism is international co-operation over information, intelligence and action. The Government have taken the lead in Europe in such co-operation. Quiet, good work has been done through the Terrorism, Radicalism, Violence, International Committee of the European Countries—the Trevi group—and by anti-terrorist police and army units, such as the SAS, the GSG 9, Holland's marines and Spain's anti-terrorist group. The Government have improved international co-operation further by reforming the law of extradition, thereby satisfying the European convention on extradition which has served Europe well for 30 years. Are we not entitled to expect similar international co-operation from our friends and allies in this fight against terrorism?
We were all shocked and hurt by the cowardly behaviour of our friends, the Belgians. The arrest had been made in accordance with the Belgian laws. Belgium had sought our co-operation in asking for extradition. When appealed against to the courts, the extradition was upheld. When there was a further appeal to the court of appeal in Belgium it was upheld. The Belgian Government overruled the decision of the Belgian courts. The Belgian Government decided not to tell us—as they had undertaken to do 24 hours before they took action—what they were doing so that we could not try to stop it. They


just did what was necessary to get the problem off their plate, which is as near an act of cowardice as I have ever seen any Government perform.
We are all staggered by the reaction of the southern Irish Government over Patrick Ryan. They may need time to examine the evidence for extradition. Nobody doubts that. However, they needed no time to back our warrant for his arrest. Can they be surprised if many people in Britain are asking today whether the southern Irish Government's heart is in the fight against IRA terrorism?
The third requisite for the effective containment of terrorism is the maintenance of border controls—the minimum necessary to reach as close as possible the unified Community market, targeted for 31 December 1992, and its concomitant, the free movement of peoples and goods, but the maximum possible to contain terrorism, as well as drugs trafficking and other serious crimes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right. We want to strengthen the European Community in its freedoms but certainly not at the expense of the security of the United Kingdom.
The fourth requisite is the determination of a united people in the United Kingdom to share in the responsibility of fighting terrorism. We all share that duty—every citizen and every organisation. It is wholly contrary to that obligation for any broadcasting authority to refuse to supply to the police film of atrocities in west Belfast or anywhere else. It is wholly contrary to that obligation for the IBA to allow film about the shooting of the three IRA terrorists in Gibraltar to be shown before the inquest has been held. It is contrary to that responsibility for mischief-making film makers to take statements from people who will not sign them and then to use them on television. It is most certainly contrary to the principle of joint responsibility for the Opposition to be less than totally united with the Government as they always used to be on matters of terrorist legislation.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so effectively said, for all the murder, maiming, misery, heartbreak and human agony, the IRA is no closer to its aim of a united Ireland, nor will it ever be if the Government—with British people of all political parties resolutely behind them—stand strong in their total rejection of the inhumanity of the terrorist, wherever he may appear in our realm.

Mr. Peter Archer: That contribution was unworthy of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for whom, as he knows, I have great respect. He was not the only hon. Member in the House who knew and respected the Israeli ambassador. Many of us have known well other victims of terrorism and we do not minimise the tragedy. No one doubts the concern or sincerity of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). However, I wonder whether any of the previous three speakers listened to the contributions from either of the two Front Bench spokesmen.
This debate is not about whether to take a firm stand against terrorism, whether to protect the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from political violence, or whether to bring paramilitaries to justice; it is about how

best to obtain those goals. We must not permit terrorists to destroy—either by their own hands or by manoeuvring the Government into doing it for them—the freedom under the law which the people of these islands regard as their heritage. If they achieve that, they will have succeeded in their principal objective.
There may be general agreement in the House over some of what the Government are doing in the Bill. Sometimes it is necessary to give to the police powers which are not shared by other citizens. Sometimes it is necessary to impose inconvenience on our citizens in the interests of security. Sometimes it will be necessary to sentence convicted offenders to long terms of imprisonment. No doubt it will sometimes be necessary to intercept funds that would otherwise find their way to the paramilitaries. So far as I know, none of that is in dispute in the Chamber, although I have no authority to speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends.
But equally, the Government must be aware of two traps, both of which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). They must beware of doing something simply in order to give the appearance of activity and to deceive the public into believing that something is being done. When young Albert's ma announced, "Somebody's got to be summonsed" she was voicing the anguish and frustration that people feel when they believe that someone, somewhere, should be doing something dramatic about a tragic situation, yet they cannot be specific about what would remedy or even improve it. It is misleading and cruel for a Government to respond by appearing to be doing something which will not solve the problem, or worse, which may be counter-productive.
We do not prevent terrorism simply by passing an Act of Parliament and calling it the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Secondly, we have to beware of doing something, which, because it is seen to be unfair, will lose the sympathy of decent, law-abiding people and transfer that sympathy to the very people to whom we are trying to deny support—[Interruption.] If the hon. and learned Member for Burton wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way to him. This is intended to be a serious debate. All of us may be wiser over a period of years because so much blood has flowed under the bridges.
Those who try to understand the psychology of terrorism do not always agree, although they probably accept that there is no one single diagnosis or one single remedy. However, they all believe that potential recruits are not deterred from violence by the clang of the prison gates. All prison can do is to keep those who are properly convicted where their power to commit acts of terrorism is restricted. But that depends on whether we are convicting the right people.
We know that the most important single factor in influencing a young Catholic in Divis or Bogside or a young Sikh in Southall who is deciding whether to join the men and women of violence is not speeches made by politicans in the House or editorials in newspapers but the opinion of their peer groups—young people of the same age group in the same area, whose assumptions are similar to their own and whose opinions they value. If they believe that the law is unfair and discriminating, they will influence one another to resist law and order. If they can be persuaded that the law and the authorities are trying to


be fair and that someone is trying to listen to what they say, they will look for ways of airing their grievances within the system.
The Opposition believe that there are unjust provisions in the Bill, which for that reason are likely to be counter-productive. The time to look at those provisions is in Committee, but I shall give two examples, both of which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. The exclusion powers in part II of the Bill are seen as discriminating in two ways. First, it is frequently people with Irish connections and Irish accents who are almost automatically on the receiving end, and, secondly, the powers are used to confine people to Northern Ireland. So someone who is thought to have terrorist connections must not be allowed to walk the streets of London or Birmingham, even if his family lives there, but it is perfectly acceptable for him to walk the streets of Belfast.
In addition to being discriminating, it is unfair in operation. The subjects are not told why the order is made. There is no public hearing where it can be challenged and no appeal to an independent arbitrator. There is just a pointless and usually frustrating interview with a Government-appointed adviser.
There is no evidence that the most minimal contribution to protecting anyone from terrorism arises from those powers. No one could accuse Lord Jellicoe, Sir Cyril Philips or Lord Colville of being soft on terrorism. The Government use their recommendations in support of the legislation. Yet they have all expressed reservations as to the value of retaining the exclusion power and Lord Colville has twice recommended that it should be excluded from the Bill. The Government do not seem to have grasped the fact that the value of being able to rely upon the recommendations of a distinguished reviewer is totally lost if it is seen that they use them not as guidance but selectively, as backing for the Government's preconceived conclusions.
The second example is the power of detention in clause 14, to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred and which was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. If that power were not in the Bill, the Government would have to rely on the powers of detention in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which does not seem particularly worrying because it is their own creation, and presumably was considered by the Home Office under the present Government to be adequate to the requirements of the police. If it is said that the PACE powers do not extend to all the situations contemplated in clause 14, they could table an amendment saying that the PACE powers should extend to clause 14. I am not saying that I approve of all the PACE powers but they are not the subject of debate tonight.
It is now clear that, once again, the United Kingdom, which used to boast to the world about its tolerance, its rule of law and its respect for freedom, has fallen foul of the European convention on human rights. According to the Prime Minister, and, as I understood it, according to the Home Secretary tonight, the Government are considering not only what to do about it, but whether to conform with it. I hope that I did not misunderstand the Home Secretary or do him any injustice, but I thought that that was the burden of what he said. If I am wrong, I welcome being corrected by the Minister when he replies to the debate.
Considering whether to conform with our international obligations which have been accepted by successive Governments because everyone knows that the European convention on human rights represented the consensus of the whole of western Europe as to the minimum standards which a citizen is entitled to expect from his Government and their legislation—

Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the Government of which he was an ornament as a Law Officer derogated from the European convention on human rights in 1978 on the introduction of the Emergency Provisions (Northern Ireland) Act concerning detention?

Mr. Archer: Derogation is one thing, and it is a possible course that is now open to the Government. We should be clear that derogation, as I understand it, entails declaring that the paramilitary organisations have endangered the life of the nation. Those are the words of article 5. If the Government say that the paramilitaries have endangered the life of the nation, I suspect that that accolade would occasion some rejoicing among the paramilitary organisations, particularly when the Government are saying that month by month they are failing and becoming less effective. So I do not think that derogation would be an issue on this occasion.
How dare the Government say that they are considering whether to comply with a legal regime which, as far as I am aware, occasions no difficulties to any other police force or Government in Europe. How can the Prime Minister preach about the rule of law or respect for the law and then announce that the Government are considering whether to bring British law into accord with the international convention accepted by all our neighbours?
Finally, the Bill is claimed to be a temporary provision, but will it no longer be looked at afresh over periods of five years? It will be reviewed every year, but we all know what that means. It means an hour and a half s debate at 11.30 on a Thursday night. I know that some of us will want to say something about that in Committee, but I bear in mind the injunction of Mr. Speaker and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I say again to the hon. and learned Member for Burton—I do not think that he is totally impervious to argument, and it may be that on reflection he will want to think again—that any hon. Member who seeks to represent our concerns as being soft on terrorism has either failed to understand what we are saying, or simply is looking for a stick to beat a political drum. He will be doing no service to the rule of law or to the people of Britain. To question how best to preserve the safety of our citizens and to maintain the rule of law is a serious matter, as the Home Secretary said. It requires analysis and not slogans, and it deserves better than to be trivialised by the Prime Minister, and the arguments should be addressed properly in the House.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I always listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) with respect. I have known him for many years, but I have to disagree with his observations tonight. I have reservations about the exclusion orders, but in my opinion they are necessary in the fight against terrorism. I put human life before human restriction.


The right hon. and learned Gentleman condemned exclusion orders as discriminating against the Irish. As someone who was born outside Great Britain, I think that no country in the world is as tolerant as the United Kingdom, and particularly the English people. I do not think that any other country would take in tens of thousands of citizens of the Irish Republic who are glad to come and live here and who are welcome. The Irish do not feel discriminated against. If they did, they certainly would not come to this country, and we must bear that in mind in considering the Bill.
The reduction in remission from one half to one third for prisoners who have been charged with scheduled offences and sentenced to five years or more is welcome to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. My Unionist colleagues and I have been pressing for such a change for many years. Our only complaint is that it has taken so long. That is our criticism of all the measures in the Bill. Why have we had to wait for 20 years for the forfeiture of money and property to be used in terrorist campaigns? The IRA depends on money to maintain its carnage in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and on the continent. The Home Secretary estimated that the annual income of the IRA is £3 million to £4 million. Every effort must be made to make sure that that money is not available to the men of terror.
The present IRA campaign of terror has lasted for 20 years, three times longer than the duration of the last war when we had restrictions on the rights and liberties of citizens, and, as has been pointed out, there was internment of people on the order of the Home Secretary. During the past 20 years, 2,800 innocent men, women and children have been slaughtered by vicious terrorists. The IRA has slaughtered people in Northern Ireland, in Britain and on the continent. After every atrocity there is a torrent of words condemning the IRA on all sides, and from the Irish Republic there are words of condemnation and sympathy to relatives of the victims. However, whenever the security forces shoot a terrorist, or whenever a terrorist is tried and convicted, there is an immediate outcry.
Many people in Northern Ireland are as perplexed as I am at the contradictory attitude which seems hypocritical in that the forces of law and order are meant to defeat Irish Republican terrorists but not to harm or convict them. In fiction, it may be possible to do that, but we are dealing with the world as it is, with all its harsh realities. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), waxed strong about the resentment of citizens of the Irish Republic who were
likely to have their support for law and order eroded".
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that citizens of the Irish Republic are also liable to arrest and detention for seven days on reasonable suspicion. Like many other measures, that measure was introduced in the Irish Republic to deal with the threat of the IRA. It is only right and proper that we should be able to introduce measures of that kind without criticism of the Government and talk about discrimination against citizens of the Irish Republic.
The IRA wins every propaganda campaign that it mounts. It is highly successful and highly sophisticated. It has the help of many people in Ireland, the United

Kingdom, America and elsewhere, who, for their own personal prejudices, are only too glad directly or indirectly to further the cause of the IRA.
The IRA is engaged in a bloody campaign of sectarian slaughter in Northern Ireland. The past 20 years have been punctuated by the most horrendous outrages committed in cold blood. Yet, throughout the world, there is the belief that Britain is holding down Northern Ireland by sheer brute force, against the wishes of the vast majority of the people there. There is the appalling belief that IRA members are freedom fighters who are defending a helpless Roman Catholic population against the terrorist attacks of the Protestant community. As hon. Members know, that is untrue. At his party conference, the leader of the SDP stated that the IRA has killed more of its own Roman Catholic compatriots than have been killed by members of the security forces.
As one newspaper suggested recently, the United Kingdom Government must spend an equal amount of money on trying to win the propaganda battle. It will be an uphill struggle, especially when those who are involved in television and radio broadcasting are doing everything possible to get around the ban on interviewing the spokesmen of the men of terror.
I hope and pray that political progress will be made in Northern Ireland and that constitutional politicians will get together and devise a system that is acceptable to the decent people of Ulster. Of course, constitutional progress will not bring an end to terrorism in Northern Ireland. Evil men are waxing fat on the profits of their evil deeds. We can destroy terrorists only by tough measures—measures that we would adopt only in a time of war. No matter what anybody may say, the IRA is waging a war against the decent people of this country. We should respond in kind. We must be tough. We must be resolute. We must be determined.
I hope that the measures will be implemented by the Government and that more will be introduced so that the Government can show that they are determined to destroy the IRA, not in another 10 or 20 years but as soon as possible. These measures may help towards that end, and I pray to God that they will do so.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: It is regrettable that, over the past few weeks, a certain atavism has grown up in Ireland and here in relation to justice and security matters. The Secretary of State was wise to ensure that that atavism does not raise its ugly head tonight. Unfortunately, in some cases it has done so.
One point crops up again and again. I do not like wearing my heart—other than my political heart—on my sleeve, but accusations were made against me personally and against my party, and we should nail them. I represent the constituency of Newry and Armagh, and I am proud to do so. It was christened "bandit country" by a former Labour Secretary of State. It is a difficult area. We do not keep going a political organisation that is committed to non-violence to constitutional politics without having to fight hard against people who demonstrate the same atavism that the House has witnessed tonight.
I know what it is to have to fight my way out of a polling station in the dark. I know what it is to have to take my workers to a polling station, when men with guns stand outside to prevent people voting. I know what it is to visit


my election agent and find him dead on his doorstep, with his four-year-old daughter sitting beside him. I know what it is to sit in my house and hear and see the mob outside trying to burn it.
Let nobody in this House or anywhere else believe that, when we talk about beating violence, we are soft on terrorism or have any sympathy with it. We see it at the coal face. When I say "we", I mean all hon. Members from the North of Ireland—Unionists and Nationalists alike.
The Secretary of State referred to the death and funeral of Mr. Barney Lavery. For over 30 years, he was a close friend of mine. I knew his little granddaughter well, too. I was at that funeral, as was, to his credit, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). It would have taken tears from a stone. Let nobody here imagine that, when we talk about suffering and terrorism and violence, we do not know it from all sides.
The Secretary of State referred to what I said previously in the House about using the law as a weapon to defeat terrorism. Maybe he should have finished the quote. I said that it was a weapon not to defeat terrorism but an instrument to create justice. I stand by that view. I stand by that view also in relation to this legislation, as I have done in relation to other pieces of legislation that we have considered recently. and I do so for one reason. I ask the House to think about it in rational terms. There are two ways of regarding the legislation. One is the negative way, saying that it will defeat terrorism; and the other is the positive way, asking whether it will create peace. There is a clear distinction.
An important point is at stake. Surely everyone's aim is to create peace in Ireland—a peace that will last; a peace that will not poison relationships every week of the year; a peace that will not bring poisoned relationships into inter-governmental squabbles such as the one that we saw last week, the one that we have seen brought into Europe, and the one that we have seen poisoning the relationship between people who live happily together on this island and in Ireland, and between two Governments who have the right to live without embarrassment and without such a poisoned relationship on an almost daily basis. Without that peace, the defeat of terrorism will not be successful.
The Prime Minister rightly coined a phrase when she talked about the oxygen of publicity for terrorism. I make the point with all the sincerity at my command that, at present, the IRA, or Sinn Fein, does not need to look for publicity, because the House is giving it to it on a weekly basis. Those organisations were mentioned 168 times in yesterday's short debate. We all belong to political parties. If we were getting that type of cheap, free publicity, would we have to worry about what happens outside the House? Over the past four weeks the newspapers, the television screens and the legislation have given that oxygen of publicity to the very same people from whom everyone wants to take that oxygen.
There is the oxygen of abnormality. I commend to everybody concerned about the problem a most accurate article by Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times last week in which he addressed that point. The habitat of the terrorist is the abnormal situation. He thrives in it and gets recruits and sympathy from it. Normality, where people go to work and lead normal lives, is the one thing that urban and rural terrorists cannot live with. They thrive on the abnormality that we have seen created in the North of Ireland. It is a tactic that they use successfully because we give it to them. A Sinn Fein political spokesman said:

We thrive with repression, but we cannot live with reform.
He knows from where he gets his recruits and support. But what do we do? We provide abnormal courts and abnormal laws, such as those on the emergency provisions, the prevention of terrorism, the freedom of the press, the right to silence and, as of yesterday, elected authorities. On and on we go. That is the context in which terrorism thrives. Surely the Government must consider the oxygen of abnormality sooner rather than later.
Over the past few weeks this country and the Irish Government have developed an abnormal international profile because of a running sore. That sore has run not for one, two or three weeks, but for almost 800 years. I suggest with all the sincerity at my command that if a fundamental problem lasts that long, surely to heaven we all have the ingenuity and vision to start to see where the answer is, instead of putting the rubber stamp on abnormality each week as it goes by.
Under this legislation 656 people were detained and released without charge between April and September 1988. Surely that must raise questions, one of which must be: is this legislation being used not on "reasonable" suspicion or even suspicion, but to trawl for intelligence and information? I believe that it is. Two weeks ago in Newry, at 6 am, a schoolboy of 18 was taken in on foot for questioning about a little civil disturbance. Before he left the police station he was taken into a room by two people who questioned him about his neighbours and asked him to join Sinn Fein so that he could provide information. He was told that his call number was Roger, and Roger rang that night. That is how the legislation is being used. Like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have made an official complaint about that. I have been making official complaints for 20 years and not sustained one, and I do not have great confidence that I shall ever sustain one. However incompetent I may be, I do not see how I can get them all wrong. I ask the Minister to look into that because that is an example of what is happening.
I have one point to make on the European Court decision in the interests of this country and the standards of justice to which the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) referred. It is not an a la carte Europe where we can take what we like and leave what we do not like. If we subscribe to the European convention on human rights, we have a duty to listen carefully and to do what is required with good grace. We should not be dragged screaming and kicking so that once again the bedrock of justice in this country is questioned publicly and the country is embarrassed internationally.
There is the oxygen of duplicity. I cannot think of a better word so forgive me for using it. I have spent many years, as have members of my party and Church leaders in the North of Ireland, asking this and other Governments to introduce legislation on racketeering. We told them what was going on and asked why there was no legislation. Irony of irony, it was introduced as a result of good investigative journalism by Roger Cook—the type of investigative journalism which will be prevented by legislation introduced a few weeks ago. Why did successive Governments not introduce such legislation? There are two reasons. First, it did not suit this Government's propaganda. For them it was good that people should believe that all the money comes from the United States. Secondly—the Loyalist paramilitary experience in Northern Ireland points to this—where there is


racketeering on such a scale, one has a constant entry into the intelligence of an organisation. Let us not be self-righteous about this or feel that something great is being done. We asked for this many moons ago and it is coming now because of a brilliant piece of investigative journalism.
There is duplicity about the way in which racketeering has been presented. What about the racketeering of the official IRA? It is believed that £6 million a year is laundered through banks in Newry. I have been told that there is no official IRA now, yet at the end of the summer I found myself at a conference sitting with the political head of the same organisation, discussing how racketeering could be tackled. What will be done about that? What will be done about UDA racketeering? We have seen what is happening on the streets of Belfast. These are the problems that we are bringing to the Government and there is agreement that we have long asked for action.
I have experience at first hand. Four years ago a young builder gave me all the details of his case. The police did not want to know because they did not have the power to do anything and the Government did not want to know because they were not going to deal with the matter at that time. That young man is now out of business and has had to come to the mainland to work on a building site. That is what we mean when we talk about the oxygen of duplicity.
There is the oxygen of grievance, whether real or imaginary. One of the awful aspects of this legislation is that Irish people feel aggrieved by it. People coming through the ports are stopped and questioned. Lorry drivers are held for three days at Dover and their loads go bad. If one speaks with an Irish accent, especially if one is young, wears denims and has long hair, one is a suspected terrorist. That builds up a sense of grievance which showed itself this past week in the awful atavism that we have seen in Ireland. That frightens me as much as the atavism that I have seen from some Conservative Members. That caters for the lowest common denominator—something that borders almost on racialism in the two countries where we should be living as peaceful people, sharing our neighbourhood in a positive and constructive way, not as is happening at present.
That oxygen of grievance is to be found in those young people who are affected by the removal of 50 per cent. of remission. We are not comparing like with like when we say that we are simply seeking to bring Northern Ireland into line with the Republic of Ireland or Britain. Here and in the Republic of Ireland parole is available after one third of a sentence has been served. That is not so in the North of Ireland. People are not sentenced by Diplock courts here; they are in the North of Ireland. They are not sentenced generally under emergency legislation here, but they are in Northern Ireland. Those grievances build up. As someone once said, that turns Nationalists and Republicans into terrorists. We live with the results of that.

Mr. William Cash: Surely the hon. Gentleman is making a case for a united Ireland.

Ms. Short: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has not mentioned that.

Mr. Cash: He has not mentioned it, but the question is whether that is what he is driving at. How does the hon.

Gentleman reconcile what he is saying with the grievance that would be present if the views of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland were to be overridden by the sort of arguments that he is putting forward?

Mr. Mallon: I cannot fathom the rationale behind that question. I wish that I could, because I know of the hon. Gentelman's interest in the Irish situation. May we discuss the matter outside the Chamber, because I do not understand his question sufficiently to answer it? I am not sure whether anybody else understands it either.
Finally, there is the oxygen of emotion, and that is a cogent factor in the type of problems that the Minister knows we have to deal with on a daily basis. That emotion can substantially carry people away. Exclusion is central to that emotion. We are to have internal exile in the days of glasnost and perestroika. The world is opening up as this type of legislation closes us in. Is there not something ironic about that? Unionists and Nationalists alike find it offensive.
The Government will never defeat terrorism, because they cannot. They have to go down the road of derogation which will damage the Government and the country more than it will damage terrorism. I make that as a serious point. I am in no way supporting terrorism; I am simply making the point that terrorism will not be defeated by such an approach or by this type of legislation. What will defeat terrorism, or, to put it in a more positive way, create real and lasting peace in Ireland is when there is consensus among Irish people on the island of Ireland. Then we shall see terrorism defeated so quickly that we shall wonder what we have been doing for the past 20 years.

Mr. Tony Baldry: No hon. Member will doubt the personal integrity and courage of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). However, it is slightly sad that, although he told us what he does not like in the Bill and what he does not like about what the Government are doing, apart from his latter comments, he told us nothing about what he and his party would wish the Government to do. It is sad that Opposition Members are always saying no—no to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, no to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, no, in due course, I have no doubt, to the Northern Irish equal opportunities legislation. There is very little that they say yes to in Northern Ireland. They say very little about how they would seek to combat terrorism. It is all very negative. They do no more than knock copy.
Let me briefly comment upon why the Bill is necessary. Hon. Members have asked whether other powers for arrest and detention are available. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) suggested that those powers are available under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. But Lord Colville's report shows clearly that the ordinary powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are not adequate to prevent acts of terrorism because they can be activated only when an offence has been or is being committed. For the victims, it is too late if the police cannot take action until a bomb has gone off. Therefore, the police need a pre-emptive power to arrest on reasonable suspicion at the preparatory stage of terrorist crimes.
Nor is it sufficient to say that in such instances the police should arrest on suspicion of conspiracy to murder


or to cause explosions and matters of that kind. The police frequently do not have sufficient evidence to prove an agreement with another person or persons to commit an offence, as the law requires.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Lady, have been waiting patiently to speak.
The police frequently do not have sufficient evidence to prove an agreement with another person or persons to commit an offence as the law requires, but they may have grounds for reasonable suspicion that a person is preparing to carry out an act of terrorism.
It is suggested that it is wrong to lock up a person for a period without access to a solicitor or without being able to notify his family of his whereabouts. A balance has to be struck bearing in mind the seriousness of the potential offence. Clearly people in police detention have the right to have someone informed of their whereabouts and to consult a solicitor. But it is essential that the police, on the authority of a senior officer, should in certain circumstances be able to delay the exercise of those rights for up to 48 hours. There are undoubtedly cases where, if it becomes known that a person has been arrested, the police could have difficulty in preventing an act of terrorism or would be seriously hampered in investigating terrorist crimes and arresting other suspects.
Lord Colville is right to say that a suspect's right to notify his family of his whereabouts and to have access to a solicitor should not be delayed a moment longer than is necessary and that the detained person should throughout be kept informed of his rights and the authority for their deferral if they are deferred. In that context it is important to realise that schedule 3 gives effect to Lord Colville's recommendation that the regime for detainees under the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be brought closer to that of people detained under other police powers.
The Bill includes new safeguards because throughout the review officer has to consider whether the reason for delay remains valid, at all times seeking to do the best to strike a difficult balance between the rights of the person detained and the rights of the community to be protected from terrorist offences.
It is vital to recognise that the Bill is essentially pre-emptive. It is designed to prevent acts of terrorism because its powers are often exercised while terrorist crimes are still in preparation. In some cases, preparation will not have gone far enough for a charge to be brought. We must recognise, too, that in some cases the information on which the determination was based may be too sensitive to bring before a court. However, the detention will clearly have been justified in preventing the terrorists' operation going any further. Let us be clear, as Lord Colville said in his review of the operation of the Act in 1986. Criticism of the Act based on the number of charges, which result from the operation of the detention powers, is misconceived and flawed, because it misses the central point that this Act's powers are pre-emptive in attempting to prevent terrorism. After all, it is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and, by definition, powers must be exercised in advance of the terrorist act, which is its entire purpose. That may mean that the preparation has not gone far enough for sustainable evidence to be available for substantive charges.
When considering statistics of charges for offences under the legislation—we have heard something about this—it is misleading to say that, simply because only a few charges are brought under it, this legislation is defective. The Act creates very few offences and they are generally ancillary, such as making a contribution to terrorism or withholding information about terrorist acts.
This legislation is about preventing terrorist offences from taking place. If a terrorist offence has taken place or it can be proved that it would have taken place, those crimes—such as murder or explosion offences—will be prosecuted under other legislation. There is an adequate body of substantive criminal law. This Bill is about measures to prevent terrorist offences from ever taking place. There must be a reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism for a detention to take place. There should not be any shadow of a sustainable suggestion that the police are using their powers improperly. Indeed, we have not heard any such suggestion.
In the recent case which was referred to the European Court of Human Rights, it was accepted that the arrests were proper. Lord Colville concluded that the allegations of abuse of this legislation were not justified. In any event, the Bill contains new powers for review of detention during the first 48 hours, similar to the tried and tested procedures contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If a suspect feels that the police have it wrong, there is the statutory police complaints procedure, both in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland, under which any complaints of alleged ill-treatment are thoroughly investigated. It is interesting to note that in all the thoroughly investigated cases mentioned in the 1988 Amnesty International report no evidence has yet been found of any justification for those complaints.
When one puts this legislation in the balance and considers what it is seeking to achieve, one sees that it is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and, as such, when one analyses what it is doing, as against the ills and evil which it seeks to combat, I believe that it is a sound and balanced piece of legislation which the House should swiftly pull on the statute book.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The continuance of organised international terrorism has shown no sign of abating. Many instances have occurred in the United Kingdom in recent years which show That there can be no loosening of the necessary measures of protection required to safeguard the British public. Terrorist groups associated with Northern Ireland continue to show a capability to inflict murder and mayhem in the Province and in Great Britain. The casualties have certainly fallen from the highest levels of the early 1970s, but the threat and the actuality of outrage is ever present. It is against that background that Parliament again reviews these exceptional measures.
The provisions of the Bill are for the most part not new. However, they are exceptional in their treatment of those suspected of involvement in terrorist activity. The powers of detention and exclusion, especially, are not those which would be considered appropriate in other circumstances. It is, therefore, right that their effectiveness and acceptability should be under constant review both by Parliament and independently. I am glad that the Government have


decided not to accept the recommendation of Lord Colville in his review of the 1984 Act that the core controls provided by the legislation should no longer be subject to annual renewal by Parliament. Lord Colville argued that the temporary nature of the controls fuelled what he called
the unnecessary controversy that surrounds them",
making it more difficult to provide proper facilities at the ports and airports.
The controversy that surrounds these measures is not unnecessary. It is a continuing and healthy reminder that the measures are exceptional and cannot be taken for granted. This debate has shown that these issues are still alive—and so they should be.
Internal banishment—that is what the power of exclusion provides for—is a power that we would not wish permanently to associate with the criminal legal system of the United Kingdom. That is why the Government are right to have provided—designed to replace the existing statute—that this Bill should expire under the provisions of clause 26 on 22 March 1990, and be renewable only if Parliament so decides by an affirmative resolution on an annual basis. This arrrangement is a reversion of the provisions of the 1976 Act and seems preferable in that it does not assume the necessity for the legislation to continue for a five-year period, even though that may be more likely than not.
Lord Colville called for annual reviews. I believe that it is proper that Parliament should pronounce on the outcome of those. I am glad that it has been agreed that Lord Colville will continue his role of providing Parliament with an annual report—which I hope will continue to be a thorough one—on the effective operation of the Act.
Lord Colville's review was the third major examination of the workings of this legislation since its inception, and I believe that it was of great value. I am glad, however, that not all of its recommendations were accepted. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) suggested that, because the Government had departed from the recommendations, they were calling in question the value of them. I say to him that to accept the recommendations without cavil or question would be to deny Parliament and the Government any part in the review process, which is patently absurd.
The Home Secretary was right to retain the offence of withholding information, which might be of assistance in preventing the commission by another person of an act of terrorism in Northern Ireland or in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person in relation to such an act, notwithstanding Lord Colville's view that it should go.
The new special search provisions for use in a great emergency appear to be of potential value in making effective the new measures to deal with financial assistance for acts of terrorism. I am glad that the Bill contains these measures, because there is no doubt that the huge financial resources that have been available to the terrorist organisations have sustained them as effectively as the outside intervention of other Governments. Many of these resources are traceable and I hope that these provisions will enjoy universal support.
The Colville report did not go deeply into the proposals contained in part III of the Bill, but they appear to follow fairly closely in principle and in operation those already introduced in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
Undoubtedly, the most controversial departure from the Colville recommendations is the Home Secretary's decision to retain the provisions relating to exclusion in part II of the Bill. The exclusion power is the most draconian contained in the legislation. Lord Colville reports the firm view of the Scottish and English Associaton of Chief Police Officers and all senior police officers to whom he spoke, who believe that it is essential to retain the exclusion powers. They believe that, without that power, effective surveillance of Irish terrorists could not be maintained. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West believes that that evidence is lacking, but I believe that it has been provided by the police officers—there can be no more authoritative evidence than that.
In an earlier part of his report Lord Colville made the general observation that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984
is basically a deterrent, something very hard to prove or disprove.
I believe that that observation is right. I believe that the exclusion provisions, although the most exceptional and unattractive provisions of the 1984 Act, are the most difficult to dispense with. Therefore, I cannot take issue with the Home Secretary's judgment about their necessity at this stage.
It has been satisfactory that the provisions of the 1984 Act have, hitherto, not been held to be inconsistent with the European convention on human rights. It is intrinsically important that, even in the extremely dangerous circumstances of Northern Ireland, this country has striven to adhere to the standards set for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in that convention. It has been a shield against charges of inhumanity and it has helped to sustain our cause in other countries. Therefore, the decision of the European Court on Human Rights on the Brogan case is one to which the Government must respond with great care.
The Democrats urge upon the Government the overwhelmingly strong case for seeking to reconcile the detention procedures with the requirements of article 5(3) of the convention that an arrested or detained person
be brought promptly before a judge.
If the Government seek, instead, to derogate from the convention under article 15, following the example of the Labour Government in 1978, they risk bringing this necessary legislation into obloquy. It will also greatly increase our difficulties in sustaining support abroad. I believe that the Government should provide arrangements to bring those arrested or detained under the provisions of the Act before a judge. In an earlier speech the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a number of suggestions as to how that might best be done. I hope that those parts of his speech will be closely considered by the Government before the Minister makes a statement in the House about the judgment of the European Court. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that that statement should be made in this House before this Bill goes into Committee, but, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that it would have been reasonable to expect the Government to come up with a practical response to the judgment of the European Court


before this debate. There is no doubt that many practical considerations must be borne in mind, but the principle of seeking to adhere to the operation of the convention should not be in any doubt.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made one of the most powerful speeches of this debate. He speaks with personal experience of the horrors of terrorism in Northern Ireland, which few in the House can share. For that we thank God. He asks us to judge this Bill by considering whether it will create peace or whether it will defeat terrorism, but those are the wrong questions. The Bill, of itself, cannot do either.
The provisions of the Bill may assist to remove the sense of powerlessness that many in Northern Ireland feel against the ever-present threat to life, limb, happiness, family unity, safe travel and the security normally enjoyed by others in the realm.
The Bill may—it is impossible to demonstrate—make it easier to prevent the commission of acts that, were we to rely upon the normal provisions of the law, would be carried out. Then, it would be too late to do anything but offer our sympathies in this House to those who have suffered and have been bereaved. Because the Bill seeks to ward off such atrocities and because law enforcement officers believe that it will have a material role in achieving that aim, we accept its unattractive provisions, which we can regard only as temporary.
Parliament must review the provisions annually and reconsider their effectiveness and the manner in which they are carried out. Given the provisions in the Bill, the Democrats accept the Government's view that it is a necessary part of their armoury to defeat terrorism in this country.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as other hon. Members wish to catch your eye.
I applaud and endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), not least because he drew the House's attention to the remarkable and disgraceful remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who said that the IRA does not constitute a threat to our national security. I hope that those words receive due attention and condemnation.

Ms. Short: That point has already been made by a number of Conservative Back Benchers. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that, to derogate from the convention, we must tell the world that the security of the United Kingdom is endangered by the IRA. That gives the IRA more status than my right hon. Friend and many of his hon. Friends believe is due to it. That is my right hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Hunter: I am well aware that that is the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I entirely reject it. The hon. Lady's intervention has given me the opportunity to do so once again.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that the Government can never defeat terrorism, but I agree with the comments that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made about that. I believe that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has missed the essential point—that

this measure is not the sum total of the campaign against the IRA. It is one particular, important measure. Past anti-terrorism legislation has played a significant part in controlling the curse of terrorism.
I believe that the Bill should be greatly welcomed. It is another stage in the intensification of the process against terrorism that started with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, and continued with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.
We have listened to counter arguments from Opposition Members. I am inclined to give credence to their former colleague Lord Mason, who was recorded in The Times as saying:
There is no telling how many lives the legislation has saved.
It is right and proper that the provisions of the 1984 Act should be re-enacted.
We note Lord Colville's apprehension about part I of the Bill, which deals with proscribed organisations, but the Government rightly accepted his conclusion that it would be wrong to deproscribe.
Lord Colville rejected the proposal for exclusion orders under part II, as did Sir Cyril Philips in an earlier appraisal of existing legislation. That was not the conclusion of Lord Jellicoe when he reviewed the legislation in 1983. He said that exclusion orders had
materially contributed to public safety in the United Kingdom.
I was intrigued by the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) against exclusion orders, because without them surely there would be a greater flow of international terrorists into Britain. I was bewildered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's reply to Lord Colville on that point. He wrote:
The power to exclude someone from all or part of the United Kingdom is one of the most important powers in the prevention of terrorism legislation…I believe it is right only to employ this power in cases where I am sure that excluding a person will prevent acts of terrorism.
My right hon. Friend's letter is ambiguous. I understand that paragraph to mean that he is referring only to terrorists connected with Northern Ireland and that he is not thinking of applying it generally to terrorists of other countries. Perhaps that point could be clarified in Committee.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh gave credit for part III—which deals with financial assistance for terrorism—to a journalist. There can be only an indirect connection because the recommendation first came from the Hodgson committee and it was also included in Lord Colville's report. It is basically the application of the powers in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 to terrorism and terrorist organisations.
Part IV, which deals with arrest, detention and control of entry, tackles a delicate and serious problem. However, when dealing with the exceptional circumstances of terrorism, exceptional powers must be taken. Although we note and respect the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, arguably it has overlooked the human right of the individual to look to the state for protection against terrorism.
I support virtually everything in the Bill, but I have one misgiving—the Bill's response to the increasing phenomenon of international terrorism. International co-operation exists between the anarchist and Communist cells in Europe. The Red Brigade, the Red Army Faction,


Action Direct, INLA, the CCC in Belgium and the IRA meet, conspire and co-operate; they use the same weaponry and armaments.
I have taken advice about the relevant clauses of the Bill and I understand that they do not preclude terrorists from other countries meeting in the United Kingdom to plot to carry out an act of terrorism in another country or to encourage others to do so—provided that they do not commit an act of terrorism or any triable offence in the United Kingdom. If that is correct, there is a serious loophole in the legislation that would allow the United Kingdom to be used as a base for the planning of terrorism in other countries by foreign terrorists.
That loophole could also be used by another form of international terrorism—the liberation movements, many of which have the backing of the Soviet Union and are a manifestation and an adjunct of Soviet policy. When those liberation movements commit acts of terrorism they cease to be liberation movements and instead become terrorist organisations. Some of them have offices in London. It is questionable whether the Bill gives the Government the power to prevent acts of terrorism being planned in this country by so-called liberation movements.
I welcome the Bill, although I have my doubts about whether it sufficiently tackles the phenomenon of international terrorism. I hope that some of the matters that I have raised will be discussed in greater detail in Committee.

Ms. Clare Short: We have experienced the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Act since 1974, and it does not prevent terrorism. It has led to the arrest and detention of literally thousands of people who subsequently have not been charged with any offence. Since 1977, 4,358 people have been detained, of whom 3,701 have not been charged with any offence. The details of the minority who were charged show them to have been charged with offences for which they could have been arrested and charged under other legislation.
The very existence of the legislation and the way in which Irish people are harassed under it and the fear that when they travel to Ireland they might be stopped and detained causes an enormous sense of injustice, alienation and anger. I seriously believe that it enlarges the sense of grievance that the system is unfair and that there is some justification for paramilitary activity. It broadens the group of those willing to advance those arguments. There is a sense of injustice and alienation under the system.
As I have said previously in the Chamber, I was working in the Home Office when the first Bill was introduced. Indeed, on the night that it was first debated I sat in the Civil Service Box under the Gallery. The last time I said that, Hansard deleted it from the report of my speech. I should be grateful if it would leave it in this time. I do not understand why we should not refer to the fact that civil servants sit in the Box under the Gallery.
I remember that night well, because it followed the Birmingham pub bombings. I well remember those, too, because I was in Birmingham that weekend and one of the pubs bombed was used regularly by one of my brothers. When the radio reported the bombings we thought that he had been blown to bits. There was tragedy for others, but

luck for us because that did not happen to my brother. I well remember the way that the atmosphere in Birmingham turned and Irish people were blamed and attacked. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who wrote a book about the miscarriage of justice for the Birmingham Six, it was the worst mass murder in British history.
The sense of anger both in this House and in the country led to an enormous demand for the restoration of capital punishment. The then Home Office Ministers feared that mood and a Bill was cobbled together, at short notice and in a short time, to appease that mood. I sat in the Box that night next to the man who had cobbled it together and we talked about it. He said that he had slung in as many ideas as he could come up with. That is the true origin of the legislation. The reasons for wanting to appease the mood and the reasons for the anger about the Birmingham pub bombings are understandable. Brian Walden, at that time the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, was asked by Home Office Ministers to make a fervent speech against capital punishment in that debate, as his speeches in this place were so famous. He made a fine speech that night, and in that case, too, the speech was set up, such was the degree of fear. That was the Bill's origin; that was why the Labour Government put it together. It was drafted at enormous speed to appease justified anger and to buy off a demand for the return of capital punishment.
Then the legislation started to operate and we started to learn about its operation. Year after year the statistics came in showing hundreds of arrests—but no charges. The Labour party was big enough to learn from that and to realise that the Act was malfunctioning, was unnecessary and was generating injustice and a sense of injustice. My party was big enough to admit that the Act had failed and should be repealed. The Labour party is entitled to be proud of that. It is not honourable to go on doing something wrong merely because it was done before. That is dishonourable for any party or political person.
Conservative Members say that if the prevention of terrorism legislation were not in place things that we do not know about would have happened and more terrorism would have taken place. That is what they assert: we can never know it. The horrible path down which that leads is the erosion of more and more civil liberties and the use of the emotions that people feel against terrorism to justify a continuing invasion of those liberties.
I remember going to Turkey in 1983. There, members of trade unions and other political activists, such as people in the peace movement, had been arrested and beaten up in police stations. Confessions had been beaten out of them. I remember the sense of grievance and injustice in that society; and it is to those things that this sort of argument points. These arguments are dangerous. Conservative Members—and the Home Secretary tonight —continually tell us that there would be more terrorism without this legislation. That is a circular argument of which there is no proof.
The paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland is a dreadful tragedy. I feel deeply about all the bombs and all the innocent people who are slaughtered because I feel strongly about the politics of Northern Ireland and the need for a peaceful settlement there. My father came from Northern Ireland and that was part of my route into politics. I believe that, especially now, the IRA's activities are absolutely counter-productive to achieving its declared


aim—the reunification of Ireland. Its members should stop their campaign, go for political activity and seek unity with the Unionist community in Northern Ireland—because all the people who live in Ireland must share. The IRA is wrong. I want a united Ireland because I want peace and justice in Ireland. But I also understand why mostly young men—and some young women—in Northern Ireland are willing to join paramilitary organisations. Their sense of grievance and injustice and their belief that Britain will not listen, so there is no political route to justice, makes them willing to engage in paramilitary violence.
This violence comes from both sides of the community. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) showed that about 64 per cent. of the deaths are the responsibility of Republican organisations and 27 per cent. that of Loyalist paramilitary organisations. The hon. Gentleman would not allow me to intervene in his speech. I wanted to ask why he was willing to parade with members of Loyalist paramilitary organisations while denouncing violence. But it is all a tragedy that must be brought to an end.
When I was in Northern Ireland a couple of months ago I found that people who would count themselves as firm Republicans were criticising the tactics, strategies and activities of the IRA more severely than ever before. That gave me great hope. Anyone who follows these matters and reads the literature knows that a debate has been growing up within Sinn Fein. I am sure that it was hastened by the SDLP talks with Sinn Fein; I honour the SDLP for having gone into those talks to determine whether the violence could be brought to an end. This growing debate has concerned whether Sinn Fein should stop what it calls the offensive use of force. I desperately want that to be encouraged. I want people in Northern Ireland who feel aggrieved and who want a united Ireland to work politically for that aim and to believe that it is possible.
The sort of measures that the Government have brought in in recent months weaken the argument for political action. The broadcasting ban, the ending of the right to silence, and so on, make those who oppose political campaigning tell the others not to be silly, because the British Government will not allow them to be politically active. They will tell them to look at the new oath that must be taken and at all the other changes, concluding that the Brits understand only one thing: soldiers going home in coffins. That is a nasty argument, but it is the one used. Decent people put forward such arguments.
If we want to stop violence and terrorism, we have to try to understand why people engage in it. We must win people over to politics within which there is space for them to express their views fairly. Legislation such as this leads to all sorts of young people being picked up, interrogated and unjustly detained, and that makes them angry and willing to support, vote for and, in some cases, join and be active in paramilitary organisations.
The series of measures introduced in recent weeks by the Government is a package that has been cobbled together in the same way as was the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, which was brought forward to appease the public mood after the Birmingham pub bombings, after which the Prime Minister asked for political initiatives of any kind. It is highly likely that this package and the anger about it will lead to an escalation of violence in Northern Ireland. I fear and expect that

more people will die as a consequence of these measures. Most politicians rarely visit Northern Ireland and do not care a damn about the violence there—0as long as it is contained there. It is almost useful to be able to pontificate about terrorism and to denounce it. I regret to say that I sincerely believe that most politicians in the House do not care about Northern Ireland or about the dreadful fact that these measures are likely to lead to more violence there.
The Home Secretary, who is unlike most other members of the Government, gave a fair presentation of the case for his Bill this evening. But it is usual Tory tactics to try to smear the Labour party. Tory Members continually smear those of us who honestly believe that this sort of legislation is counter-productive; so does the nasty press, which supports them and is owned by their friends. The argument runs that if we are against a measure entitled "The Prevention of Terrorism Act" we must be in favour of terrorism. That is a lie, but Tories deliberately use it all the time for political ends. Given all that, I cannot and will not back off and lend my support to these indefensible and counter-productive measures which are likely to lead to an increase in terrorism and paramilitary violence. I am unlikely to be swayed by the threat of this sort of smear argument.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a superb speech in which he put the case against the Bill extremely well. Indeed, his speech could not have been bettered, but I believe that my party's tactics tonight are extremely foolish and will send out a muddled message from the House about the Labour party's position on the prevention of terrorism. I, like others, am not in principle against action to take away the property of paramilitary organisations that has been improperly obtained. I am worried about the provisions in the Bill which say that someone has to prove that he did not come across property illicitly.
Not long ago a woman whose husband's shop went bust came to my advice bureau. Her husband had engaged in some drug selling and was arrested and imprisoned. The authorities threatened to take away her house in which she lived with her children. I am not in favour of that sort of thing. I am perfectly willing to look at the principle, but we must also look at the details. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, putting the onus of proof on the person whose property is to be confiscated is wrong.
The Labour party's decision on the Bill was caused by Tory smears and lies and I am afraid that the Labour party gave in to that. We should not give in on such serious matters because of smears and attacks made in the press, or we will end up going ever backwards and defending the indefensible. I deeply regret that my party gave in to that. I respect the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, but I shall vote against the Bill, as will many of my hon. Friends. The measure is counter-productive.

Rev. William McCrea: Before the hon. Lady finishes her speech, perhaps she could address her mind to a problem that I face. I walked behind a policeman's coffin the other day. The brother of that policeman's widow was murdered a few years ago as well. The hon. Lady has said much about her worries about persons being harassed. Will she tell the House and my constituents what she would deliver to the widow and the


orphans? Other hon. Members are trying to raise other matters, but I am asking a straightforward question and I am sure that I will get a straightforward answer.

Ms. Short: I apologise to hon. Members who are waiting to take part in the debate. If the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) had been listening to my speech he would know my answer. Those deaths are tragedies and each one is a personal tragedy in whichever community it occurs. I desperately want to see peace for all the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill will escalate the violence and will not bring peace. That is my sincerely held view. As I say, I shall vote against Second Reading.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I admire the determination of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). We appreciate her point of view and her determination to put it forward, and we respect her conviction. However, like many of my hon. Friends, I disagree with what she said. She was correct to say that probably many people outside will interpret the stand taken by Labour Front-Bench Members as being the result of pressure from Conservatives. I would put it further. It is the result of public opinion and the real horrors of terrorism which, I accept, all hon. Members reject. The difference between the hon. Lady and many of her hon. Friends and Conservative Members is that we feel that we have to give the police the tools to deal with terrorism. That is why the Bill is necessary.
I am afraid that the Labour party shows a cavalier attitude to the safety of the British people and an inability ever to unite to formulate a coherent and strong anti-terrorist policy. Every Government must be prepared to have a policy to protect its citizens. Many Northern Ireland Members have spoken from the bottom of their hearts and have almost pleaded with the House to ensure that the security forces in Northern Ireland have the tools to do the job. We must give the police the powers that they need to fight terrorism. The fig leaf offered by the Opposition of partial agreement to the Bill is not enough.
We have to look at the nature of terrorism. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) advised us that we could use the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to deal with detentions so that the police could inquire into terrorist activities. We are not dealing with ordinary crime. There is a fundamental difference between criminals who commit offences for personal gain and terrorists who commit acts of violence to perpetuate a cause. The terrorist is blind to reason or compassion and sees the gun and the bomb as his only way to overcome constitutional law and achieve his ends. The ordinary criminal is out for personal gain and, as I say, the difference between the two is fundamental.
We have to look at the people we are dealing with when we talk about interviewing terrorist suspects. Many terrorists, and especially those in the IRA, are trained in Northern Ireland and some of them have experience of camps in Syria and the Lebanon. They are trained by the PLO or by other Palestinian organisations. One of the fundamental parts of their training is the ability to resist interrogation by the security forces, police or military. We are dealing with an extraordinary type of person, and that requires extraordinary measures.
Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are not listening. Perhaps if they did they might learn something. They advocate the use of the normal courts to deal with persons charged with terrorist offences. They say that we should forget the Diplock courts and that if we do not have the evidence we should not use the exclusion orders which are a fundamental part of the Bill. The Opposition forget, but I am sure that my friends from Northern Ireland will remind them, that in Northern Ireland witnesses will not come to court to give evidence in the way that witnesses do in the rest of the United Kingdom in the normal course of judicial proceedings. That is because of intimidation and the threats of violence towards the families of witnesses. We are not dealing with normal judicial proceedings, and that is why extraordinary measures have to be used. The Bill is one such measure.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who will take the Bill through Committee will have a major problem in dealing with the decision by the European Court of Human Rights. Before I deal with that, it is worth mentioning that in a way the decision of that court is typical of the problem facing the forces of law and order in dealing with terrorism in the United Kingdom. Four men applied for judgment, first by the European Commission and then by the European Court. Terence Brogan was suspected of killing two police officers. Dermot Coyle was responsible for bomb attacks, especially in Tyrone. William McFadden was suspected of murdering two soldiers. Michael Tracey was involved in several armed robbery offences.
The fifth man who went with them was called Charles English. His case was withdrawn fron the European Court after he was killed when a rifle-launched grenade exploded prematurely. The newspaper of the Republican movement described him as an active service volunteer in the Derry brigade with 21 years' experience. The problem for the forces of law and order was that witnesses would not come forward to give evidence in such cases.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has two options. He could introduce judicial intervention to get round the problems posed by article 5(3), which sets out the need to get a suspect before a court as promptly as possible. My right hon. Friend should remember that, before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, suspects being interviewed at length by the police were regularly taken before magistrates when requests for detention for further investigation were made. That procedure could be restored. My right hon. Friend will have my support if he introduces that or some alternative to derogation.
We should remember that the British Government have twice asked for derogation from decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In 1971, the Conservative Government asked for a derogation on internment. In December 1978, the Labour Government asked for a derogation in relation to the powers that were included in the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978. That Act would not have got through the House had it not been for the support of the Conservative Opposition, because 35 Labour Members voted against it. Tonight many Labour Members will vote against this Bill. Their opposition is nothing recent. It goes back over 10 years.
My right hon. Friend has no guidance from the European Commission or from the court. The Commission said that four days' detention without coming before a court is perfectly all right, but that five days is not. The case was taken to the full court. Although it agreed with the Commission, it gave no reasons for its


decision. So there is no guidance on how long the court believes a suspect may be held before being taken before a court. But my right hon. and hon. Friends will have my full support in dealing with the problems posed by article 5(3). We must provide protection for the British public.
The powers of exclusion have also attracted much opposition. I endorse the Home Secretary's views. If a prisoner deliberately tells the inmates of that prison, whether it be the Maze or anywhere else, that on his release he intends to bomb and kill, what are the forces of law and order expected to do? Should they ignore that? Are they supposed to allow him free access into the country so that he may form part of a cell, bury himself in a city here and slowly plan a bombing campaign?
Some hon. Members have said that no European country has similar legislation. In France, a convicted terrorist is required to reside in a special place for between two and 10 years. There is a similar restriction in Italy, with the added requirement of reporting to the police regularly. There is a great need for such protection. We should be able to know that terrorists, whether they be Libyans, Iranians, Iraqis or members of the IRA, can be excluded from Britain.
The fact that we need such a Bill is borne out by the events concerning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose life was threatened by an IRA cell, by the 1981 bombing campaign in seaside resorts, which was foiled, by the Arab who tried to blow up an El Al jet at Heathrow airport and by the murders of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy and the Israeli ambassador.
No one knows better than Conservative Members that extraordinary measures are needed to deal with an extraordinary problem. I am afraid that the official Opposition are offering nothing to the public tonight. We offer the police of this country the tools to combat terrorism. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends are pursuing the right course in bringing the Bill before the House.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Time is short and I will try to restrict my remarks so that someone else may speak.
The prevention of terrorism legislation has been utterly useless. It has not prevented any terrorism. It has deepened the intensity of feeling in Ireland generally and in Northern Ireland in the minority community in particular. The legislation was born in the political climate of fear with a determination to wreak vengeance against someone.
I was in the Chamber that night when the first Prevention of Terrorism Bill was introduced. To its shame, the original Bill was a Labour Bill and it pandered to the hysteria at the time. Some Labour Members were completely against it. Indeed, one or two Labour Members from the midlands were physically frightened to oppose the legislation because they had to go back to their constituencies. They were afraid to vote against it although many of us wanted to do that.
Not only has this legislation failed to stem terrorism, it has increased it. Ordinary criminal law can handle those cases. It is well known in this place that the Government are now deeply committed to what the Labour Government realised was an error on their part. I share the

view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about what is happening in the Labour party.
This appalling Bill is pregnant with injustice and vendetta. It first appeared in 1974 when, as I have said, many hon. Members were afraid to express their views about it, although some did. They were not simply afraid to do that in the party; they were afraid of the reaction in their constituencies. Some hon. Members were frightened about what their management committees might say—[Interruption.] It is rude to interrupt when I have only a few minutes to speak. I have argued against people like the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) for years because they are responsible for all this.
The lack of democracy in Northern Ireland spawned the IRA. The deadly enemy of terrorism is not security measures, although they are important. The deadly enemy is democracy. The lack of democracy in Northern Ireland was caused by people like the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and his colleagues and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his friends. They still want to return to that situation which spawned the IRA when they attacked the march against the lack of justice and democracy in Northern Ireland. Those people know that as well as I do. The powers of arrest and detention were described by the former right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, now Lord Jenkins, as draconian.
I want to give my view about what my party has just done. I am at a total loss to understand how anyone could table a reasoned amendment—God knows what an unreasoned amendment might be—which justifies not voting against the Bill. Reasoned amendments like that to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill yesterday and the one tonight should really cause us to vote against the Bill. I will be voting for the reasoned amendment, as I have done over the past 14 or 15 years, and I will vote against Second Reading because the Bill is draconian and causes terror and misery to many honest Irish people. That misery is caused by the people who want to go back to Stormont and the old policies which caused all the trouble.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and others who have spoken briefly. I know that there is great passion among many hon. Members and they could have spoken for longer
There is always great sadness in the House when we discuss matters similar to this. We remember atrocities, murders and mourning and we even remember murders at times of mourning, at funerals and on Remembrance day. Those of us who know Ulster—and it is a part of the world that I love—know how terrorism is a cancer that infects an otherwise beautiful country. It is a disease, but it surprises many people who visit Ulster that they do not find everywhere they look evidence of atrocities. However, they know, as we do, that those atrocities and the danger of terrorism is never far away. On top of death and destruction, the threat scares away investors and employers, reduces the already poor employment opportunities and decreases the ability of the country to recover economically.
Yet Opposition Members have said that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has failed


because terrorism continues. That is madness. That is the type of argument that seeks to ban preventive medicine because disease has not been fully conquered, or ridicules home security because burglaries are still perpetrated, or bans prisons because they do not eradicate crime completely.
Those whose madness stretches to their tragic and pointless suicides in the hunger strike or leads to their self-humiliation in the dirty protest cannot be stopped completely by anything. Their belief and passion are fuelled by actions against them and they believe that they are right. Those who are dedicated to their cause believe that they are right, but I do not include here those who exploit that cause through fraud, theft, protection rackets and the like for personal greed. Those who have that passion for their cause will, of course, react against this Bill and against anything that tries to stop them and keep them within the law. Is that a reason for us not to introduce such legislation?
Our democracy allows for disparate views. What distances these people, and why we must do all that we can to counter them, is that they do not accept democracy and will not wait for a majority view in Northern Ireland, which might unite North and South. They will murder and maim to exercise a warped demonstration of their power—the power of the gunman over the unarmed and of the bomber over the school child, grandfather or farmer. Is that the way to gain respect or to win men's minds?
At least the Bill is a genuine and decent attempt to try to prevent terrorism and has not been introduced by skulking in bushes or with the benefit of hundreds of yards of wire. It has been introduced not in a cowardly or secretive way but in the full glare of parliamentary publicity and in open debate. That is democracy at work and it is anathema to terrorists. I welcome the Bill and I accept that limitations on liberty, such as the exclusion order, have not been taken lightly. We consider infringements of human rights carefully, but I know that many hon. Members would rather consider the human rights of those who have been killed or maimed horribly in the streets, in shops, in pubs, discotheques and even in public places such as the London streets during Christmas shopping.
The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the great majority of senior police officers are said by Lord Colville to support the continued use of exclusion powers. Without exclusion powers, they would not have the physical resources to provide surveillance for all suspected Irish terrorists who might arrive. The retention of powers is regrettable, but essential.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) talked about the inconvenience, anger and bitterness felt by those who are stopped when travelling, those who are searched and who feel fear. I was stopped and searched once, not long ago, and I felt fear. Yet I was on the side of the security forces. I can understand what people must feel if they harbour republican views in their hearts. But we are implementing this legislation not because we like it or out of a sense of strange or quirky

authoritarianism. We are implementing it because we have a responsibility for all the people of the United Kingdom, including the peaceful people in Ulster.
There was a streak of remarkable honesty in the speech made by the hon. Member for Ladywood. There was a most impressive speech from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—one of the most impressive that I have heard from him. There was also a moving speech from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). A debate of this sort is capable of lifting people to heights that we sometimes do not recognise.
This new Bill and its new powers will make a contribution towards peace and will at least stop us from apparent sterility in the battle against terrorism. I thoroughly approve of the financial assistance powers included in it. The onus of proof against those who are suspected of having collected money for terrorism is absolutely vital. It has been shown to work in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. When I served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I recommended the measure and I am pleased that it has been such a success. If such measures help to stop the money flowing in from Noraid—with its misguided loyalty from those of Irish origins who wallow in the nostalgia of an Ireland long past, and for whom the details of death are dulled by distance—and if we can manage to stop other collections for terrorist purposes, we will have made a contribution in this battle.
I end by saying that terrorists are not freedom fighters. They have, if they want, freedom to act within the law, as we all do. Terrorists are anti-freedom fighters. They are anti-democratic. I hope that the Bill will help to preserve the freedoms that we hold dear and that we wish to protect for all the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bruce George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for making much shorter speeches than they had planned, which has allowed me to be the last Back Bencher to have five minutes in which to make his speech, thus discarding nine tenths of the speech that I had intended to make.
As a west midlands Member, I can remember vividly the events of 21 November 1974—those horrendous events that precipitated the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974. It is true that it was hastily conceived, but it was greatly demanded and supported. I feel no sense of guilt at having supported it.
However, having heard the debate and listened and read a great deal over the years, I feel that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been nowhere near as central in the fight against terrorism or as positive as some Conservative Members have argued, nor, conversely, has it been as dangerous and superfluous as some of its critics have maintained. I have been reading carefully a book on the law and the prevention of terrorism by Clive Walker, which largely comes to the same conclusion.
Terrorism will increase, new groups will emerge and the fight against terrorism will become even more difficult in the future. Those who, in the dim and distant days of the early 1970s, hoped that the legislation would need to be merely temporary have had their naivety ruthlessly exposed.


We will never defeat terrorism. However successful we are in fighting it nationally and internationally, it will be with us for decades, or for as long as the human race exists. In our fight against terrorism it is vital that we pursue democratic means and maintain international co-operation, despite the many stresses. Whatever the criticism of Belgium, I do not think that any Prime Minister should receive such a public dressing down as Mr. Martens received. When Queen Victoria said of Gladstone,
He addresses me as though I were a public meeting" perhaps she had a foretaste of things to come.
Despite the crises and pressures, we must co-operate internationally because that is the only way to minimise terrorism. That is why we should comply with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. We cannot expect co-operation on some issues if we deny it on others. Other countries have complied. Spain had far more draconian laws regarding the powers of arrest than we have. Indeed, until last year it was possible to hold a suspect incommunicado for 10 days. That period is now five days, and the suspect must then appear before an examining magistrate. I believe that we should comply also.
I spoke today to Professor Paul Wilkinson, who is probably the leading academic expert on terrorism in this country. He takes a sane view on the problems of dealing with terrorism and suggested a way in which we might comply, which I hope will be considered carefully. He proposes a prevention of terrorism tribunal, with three senior judges who have great experience in dealing with terrorism. That would introduce a judicial element into the process. The tribunal could advise the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary on reviewing legislation regarding the prevention of terrorism. It would provide a more regularised and systematic method of monitoring than we have at present. Above all, it would allow the police to go to the tribunal to request an increase in the number of days for which they could hold a suspect without formally charging him. That is possible, if the Home Secretary is prepared to be flexible.
I endorse those clauses that deal with the financing of terrorism. I had hoped that James Adams' book on the financing of terrorism would be reflected in the Bill. Some of these organisations are similar to multinational corporations. There is robbery, extortion, gambling, drinking, ripping off the state and setting up companies such as taxi firms and security firms. It is wrong to argue that Noraid and Gaddafi are the paymasters of the IRA. Infinitely more money is generated by the methods that I have mentioned.
The PLO is top of the league. Its assets are reputed to be in excess of $15 billion, with investments in property and impressive investment portfolios. It has property and farms and it is involved in all sorts of enterprises, which proves that the enterprise spirit has perhaps infected that organisation. We should hit them where it hurts. Clausewitz said that moneys are the sinews of war. If we use the experience of the USA and its experience in dealing with the mob and apply the techniques that are included in the Bill, despite its defects, we shall be more successful.
In his book James Adams said:
As much effort should be devoted to tracing the sources of money—the bank accounts and the investments of terrorist organisations—as is spent on countering the bomber and the assassin.

The old Chinese proverb,
Kill one and frighten 10,000,
is regrettably valid. The costs of terrorism are high, but the costs of not getting the fight against terrorism right are even higher.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: There can be few more important debates than the one we are conducting today. It has been a thoroughly good debate. I have learnt a great deal from it. The Bill penetrates to the heart of our constitution—how we conduct and maintain our democratic system in the face of threats, bombs and bullets, which are the methods of the terrorists, whom all hon. Members despise.
How, then, shall we be able to preserve our historic: and hard-won rights and freedoms while at the same time successfully confronting and overcoming those who would use violence as a political weapon? Many of these rights and liberties have become the hallmark of decent, civilised and democratic societies. They include the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and from detention without trial, the right to freedom of speech and assembly and free political activities under the law—the freedom under the law, of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) reminded the House.
These core freedoms and liberties of citizens are more important than any of the other matters that we discuss in this place. They are more vital than any of the other items in the Gracious Speech. Without them, we cease to be capable of controlling our political destiny. We shall be unable to speak freely, to organise ourselves politically or to advance our political arguments openly, and thereby persuade our people that we are worthy of their trust, hope and support.
In all democracies the threat to those core freedoms often comes from the direction of a restrictive executive power that believes that liberty means licence, that free expression breeds disorder and, above all, that individual rights and liberties can be sacrificed for some greater good—some desirable goal that the nation must achieve at whatever cost, whatever price. Too often such Governments promise that the loss of rights and liberties will be only for the short term, for emergency periods only, or just as an interim measure until the national goal has been achieved. The lessons of history teach us that for power-hungry executives "temporary" becomes "permanent" and that Governments rarely willingly give back to Parliaments and people what they have taken away. Normally those rights and liberties have to be campaigned for with the utmost vigour if they are ever to be genuinely restored to the people.
We on this side of the House view with dismay the Government's decision to give the prevention of terrorism provisions a permanent place on the statute book. That is clear from our reasoned amendment. First, it represents a further encroachment on the rights and liberties of all the people of our country. It is a further step down a tragic path to a less democratic and a less free society.
Secondly, we see it as the sign of a Government who have, perhaps inadvertently, given in to terrorism. I do not say that in a petty or particularly partisan fashion because, by and large, the debate has tried to steer away from that level. Former Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have introduced and perpetuated preventive


measures to counter terrorism because they genuinely believed that they were the correct and appropriate responses at that time.
Most of us still remember that ghastly night of the Birmingham pub bombings that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) described with such poignancy. We remember the outcry for action that was part of the aftermath and horror felt when so many innocent men and women were cruelly slain. Year after year we have seen similar cowardly attacks that have wrecked innocent lives.
As I have said, we can understand why some Governments acted in that way. However, time goes on and the world has changed in many respects since the draconian powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 were passed through the House as a temporary measure. That was 14 years ago and surely it is now time for a proper re-evaluation.
The Opposition believe that the time is right for a dramatic change in the way in which we combat and defeat terrorism. The way in which the Government now orchestrate their policies is profoundly counter-productive. I do not doubt that the Home Secretary genuinely believes—as do many Conservative Members—that passing the Bill through the House will do something to prevent terrorism. The Opposition do not agree. Time has not stood still, and we have argued that our knowledge of and capacity to combat terrorism has improved dramatically over those 14 years.
At the time of the Birmingham pub bombings the police were relatively inexperienced compared to their proficiency today. It is now a very different ball game. Not only has the professionalism of the police and the armed forces in Northern Ireland improved, but criminal law has altered quite dramatically under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those two factors alone are crucial in the case for ridding ourselves of the prevention of terrorism provisions.
Perhaps more significant than the practical differences is the fact that we have now learnt much more about the terrorist mind. Several hon. Members have referred to that. Most significantly, we have discovered that it is the repressive counter measures introduced by the Government and the reduction and curtailment of ordinary people's rights that the terrorist sees and celebrates as a sign of his success. The more repressive and draconian the measure and the legislative and Executive response, the better the terrorist likes it. That is the truth, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) talked about wanting tough, resolute and determined measures. The Opposition want them too. However, we profoundly disagree about the way in which to achieve them. The oxygen of repressive legislation, not the oxygen of publicity, is what terrorists crave and that is what they get from the Government in increasingly large doses.
We believe that it is time to stop feeding the terrorist habit, to cut off the supply of oxygen and steadily to return to the relative normality of combating terrorism vigorously using the weapons available under the normal criminal law—not a special law for terrorists, but that which applies to every man and woman in the land. To do

so would be a far more effective way of fighting terrorism and it would simultaneously arrest the increasing pressures on the rights and liberties of our people. We would have two for the price of one. Those pressures apply not just to the rights directly affected by the powers granted under such Bills. The rights affected are not merely the direct rights in Northern Ireland. The restriction of the rights and freedoms of some of our people cannot be isolated and contained in one part of the United Kingdom.
Time and again restrictions have been introduced initially in Northern Ireland and then spread to the rest of the United Kingdom. The removal of the right to silence is a case in point. It was removed in the House almost by stealth at night a few weeks ago. A few days later the Home Secretary was reviewing and looking favourably on removing the right to silence in the rest of the United Kingdom. The right to trial by jury was replaced by the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. We heard on the radio only this morning that it finds favour with the Home Secretary in certain cases in British courts.
Finally, the censorship of the media, so arrogantly imposed by the Government on Northern Ireland, has distinct parallels with the insidious developments in the media in the rest of the country. At times it would appear that Northern Ireland is used as a test bed for legislation that the Government hanker to apply more widely to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Bill shows the Government at their very worst. It shows us a Government no longer able to think clearly about the problems they seek to confront, a Government reduced to what Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times last Sunday described as:
Blitzing the political agenda with an array of anti-IRA measures which seem wholly unjustified by any new public terror or threat thereof.
Mr. Jenkins seems to understand, and the Government fail to comprehend, that so much of this activity may produce the opposite effects to those intended and desired. As Mr. Jenkins notes:
One last push against terrorism may be a good slogan … but hurling more money and more laws at the IRA graces it with a mantle of aspiring tyranny which it ill-deserves.
We do not anticipate the Government changing their mind this evening. We do not anticipate a Pauline conversion. However, the Government have been given a very interesting opportunity. Before they use their majority to bludgeon the Bill through the House and through Committee, we appeal to them to seize the opportunity uniquely presented by two occurrences.
First, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights gives them perfectly good justification for ditching a whole section of the Bill that the Opposition find so regrettable. The European Court of Human Rights has given the Home Secretary the opportunity to say, "We will obey and we will conform. We will not dodge, we will not fudge; we will change the British law." One section of the Bill would be removed and that would give us far greater respect and co-operation internationally.
The Home Secretary knows that such a sign of international co-operation in Europe will do a great deal to mend the fences that have been torn down by the behaviour of the Prime Minister recently. We will get far greater respect if we conform to the European Court. That would also restore the fundamental right of our people not to be put into detention without being charged. The Government have failed to comply with the recommendations of two—not just one—independent assessors of the


working of the former Acts. The Home Secretary was partial in his quotations from Lord Colville's strong recommendation. Lord Colville is not exactly a radical figure. He is a former Conservative Minister of State. On exclusion powers, he found on two occasions that the right thing to say was
I review my recommendation made in the annual report on the Act for 1986 that part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988 or not replaced in the new Bill".
The Home Secretary appears to be a liberal Home Secretary. In the salons and exclusive dining rooms of London he is regarded as one of the remaining civilised members of the Conservative Cabinet. But, for all the image that he may project, he is presiding over the whittling away of and damage to rights and civil rights in this country—the worst that has occurred under any Home Secretary this century.
If the Government bow to the judgment of the European Court on the requirement that anyone arrested on suspicion of terrorist acts must be taken promptly before a court, and if they bow to their own independent assessor, Lord Colville, on the iniquitous power to exclude United Kingdom citizens from certain parts of their own country—part of the United Kingdom—what point would there be in the Bill with the heart ripped out of it? We would be able to cover the other aspects of the Bill in a quite different way.
Opposition Members support powers to confiscate terrorist funds of those who are likely to provide help and sustenance to the IRA and other terrorist organisations, whether they be in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the world. We want to look closely at the fine detail of how the Government intend to proceed, because there are some real difficulties in the way in which that can be carried out.
We also oppose the proposal to grant terrorists the very separate status that the Prime Minister has so many times said that she wishes to avoid giving members of the IRA, whether or not they are convicted members. We will oppose a separate status under a new system of remission on prison sentences. Such matters will be debated in Committee.
Having been closely involved in it, Mr. Speaker, you will know that we are in the last three weeks of our celebration of the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Mr. Lawrence: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, will he give way?

Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not give way. I want to finish this part of my speech.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way.
We are in the last three weeks of the celebration of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which produced the Bill of Rights. We must remember that that event was directed against the executive tyranny of James II. Surely in this tercentenary year we cannot repudiate our long-cherished rights of citizens against star chambers and autocratic Governments. We hear much from the Government about individual freedom. They talk of lifting Government restrictions on liberty. However, such talk is always limited to economic life. We owe it to those who, for 300 years, have been committed to individual freedom and rights in political life to be true to that heritage. We, the first nation to recognise the basic rights of citizens—men and women

—must not after 300 years repudiate those fundamental principles. Our reasoned amendment gives Conservative Members the opportunity to vote against the Bill and to join Opposition Members in the Lobby this evening.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I have pages and pages of detailed notes about many of the technical aspects of the Bill, but I assure the House that I do not propose to read through them.
None of us who has taken part in this debate has perhaps had as much time as we might have chosen, but at least that makes us concentrate on the essence of the question that the House is considering. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) were present, I should like to say to her that neither my right hon. Friend nor 1 have made any smear about the Labour party supporting terrorism. Our criticism, which is entirely valid, as this debate has shown, is that, although we have spent another day on the whole question of the prevention of terrorism legislation, we have not heard from Labour Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members any serious arguments to counter the points made by my right hon. Friend today and all Ministers who have ever spoken on this legislation over the past 14 years about the need for special legislation to deal with the special circumstances caused by the campaign of terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Last night the Opposition acted in three different ways on the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill. Some voted for a reasoned amendment, others voted against the Bill, and some abstained from voting on Second Reading. I have listened to almost everything said during this debate and it sounds as though much the same sort of performance will take place tonight. The reason is not that these matters have not been fully aired during our debates, but that Opposition Members seem to have been addressing the wrong question. They have argued that this or that part of the prevention of terrorism legislation has caused this or that difficulty in certain respects, but they have systematically failed to deploy any case against the overwhelming arguments in favour of having special provisions to deal with the unusual and unwelcome circumstances in Northern Ireland and of terrorism generally. I wish that that were not so and that we had a much more united House on this subject. To the world outside and to the men of violence, a much more unanimous approach would convey a stronger message, particularly as many Opposition Members supported legislation of this kind when they were in government.
It is no good the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) or the hon. Member for Ladywood saying that the whole of the prevention of terrorism legislation was some sort of instantaneous response to the Birmingham pub bombing, that it was spatchcocked at the last minute and so, by implication, the Labour Government gave no serious thought to what it contained. Of course they did. They would not have re-enacted it in 1976 if they had not given serious thought to what it contained. Naturally some aspects of the original legislation may have been put together in a hurry, but I do not blame them for that. Under the pressure of public opinion and the practical need to do something to deal with the terrorist threat at that time they had to accept that legislation of an exceptional character had to be


introduced. They did that and they should be given credit for having done so. But after a year of so they reappraised the matter and brought forward a more considered Bill, which they tidied up, and that is the legislation that has been on the statute book in substantially similar terms ever since. They cannot get away from that.

Mr. Lawrence: Unfortunately, I could not be present throughout the debate. Did my hon. Friend, who has valiantly been here throughout, hear any Opposition Front-Bench spokesman pledge to repeal the legislation, because I think that they have undertaken to do so in their manifesto?

Mr. Stewart: I shall have to look in Hansard tomorrow to see whether any such passage appears in the speeches. The important point is not so much what the Opposition might do in office, but that, if they treat legislation in the way that they are treating this legislation, they will have no right ever to hold office again. It is an important test of a responsible Opposition that they should look at the central purpose of legislation before deciding to vote against it or to produce what is called a reasoned amendment.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) rehearsed in slightly different terms some comments that he has made from time to time about security measures not solving the problems of Northern Ireland. Of course, security measures alone will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland, but that is an entirely different argument from saying that we do not need security measures at all. If we were to abandon the sort of security measures that are represented by this legislation, there would be an immediate and uncontrollable situation which at present is substantially contained by the powers that are available to the Government.
I want to emphasise something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said on a number of occasions: that our approach to the future of Northern Ireland and the situation there does not simply include security. Of course, security matters dominate the headlines. I am afraid that that is inevitable. But we should not overlook the fact that Northern Ireland's future depends on economic, social and political progress and on elected representatives taking a more direct part in Northern Ireland's political life. All those things we want to see, but to suggest that merely because security measures alone will not solve all those problems security measures by definition are not needed is a travesty.
The British people, and the people of Northern Ireland in particular, owe the security forces a tremendous debt of gratitude. Every day, members of the RUC and the UDR, in addition to the regular British armed forces, put their lives at risk to protect the community, and the threat against them does not end when they go off duty. They face constant danger, and we ask them to risk their lives on our behalf so that the cycle of violence may be broken.
I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the brave men and women of the Northern Ireland security forces, especially those who have died or been injured in the course of their work or the duties that they perform.
The aim of the Bill is to give those to whom we entrust the rule of law in Northern Ireland the powers that they

need to defend society from the brutality of the terrorist. Nowhere is it more important for us to do that than in Northern Ireland.
We should not doubt the scale and nature of the terrorist threat. There have been substantial finds since the beginning of this year. The RUC has so far recovered 500 weapons, nearly 90,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 9,000 lb. of explosives. In the south, the Garda has found nearly 300 weapons, 140,000 rounds of ammunition and 1,100 lb. of explosives. I pay tribute to the work of the Garda Commissioner and his force, as well as to the RUC, for their success this year in seizing terrorist munitions. These are good finds, but the serious threat remains. That is why we need to review the prevention of terrorism provisions. They are not permanent, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members during this debate.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I am short of time, so I shall not give way.
The provisions will be renewable in whole or in part each year and any part which is not renewed will then fall. The need for regular scrutiny has been accepted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There has recently been a major review by Lord Colville, which has been much quoted in this debate and has been of great value.
The effectiveness of such measures cannot be proved or disproved by statistics of either incidents or convictions. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) suggested that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had led to a significant increase in violence. If he wants to talk in statistics, I must tell him that in 1986, the year after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, in Northern Ireland there were 61 deaths from terrorism and 172 explosions. In 1984, the year before the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there were 64 deaths from terrorism and 193 explosions—higher by about 10 per cent.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I am quoting those figures only because I do not believe that the effectiveness of any measures or legislation—

Mr. Maginnis: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote statistics, will he listen to someone who knows those statistics off by heart? Does he realise that the year before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not 1984, but 1985, and that there were 47 terrorist killings in that year? There had been a constant decrease in terrorist killings from 1981, when there were 101. In every year since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the death toll has risen—from 47 in 1985, to 59 in 1986. to 80 in 1987 and to 84 up to 15 November of this year. The hon. Gentleman should be accurate if he quotes statistics.

Mr. Stewart: I said that the statistics for deaths from terrorism and for explosions in 1986, which was the year after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, were both lower than the figures for 1984, which was the year before the agreement was signed. I merely say that because it is a fact, and I believe that it shows that statistics cannot be used to demonstrate such trends. I say, too, that the exact number of incidents, convictions or explosions from year to year cannot in any sense represent the effectiveness of the prevention of terrorism legislation, because the most important, continuing factor in the level of terrorism is the capability and the determination of the terrorists together


with the level of resources acquired. We all know that in recent years the terrorists have received substantial supplies of arms and explosives from Libya and elsewhere, which is a major part of the threat faced by the security forces.
Remission is a new element in the Bill, which especially relates to Northern Ireland. Under the current arrangements, a person serving a fixed sentence in Northern Ireland for a terrorist offence would, as a matter of course, be released earlier than if he had committed the same offence and received the same sentence elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In the light of experience of reinvolvement, we do not believe that that should be allowed to continue. The changes in remission are being made against a background of increasing terrorist violence. We have found that a significant proportion of people released from prison on remission have become reinvolved. However, I emphasise that, unless they commit a new scheduled offence after release, none of the existing prison population and no one awaiting trial in Northern Ireland will be affected by the new provisions, because the one third remission and the new rules of reactivated remission will apply only for scheduled offences committed after the Bill is enacted. As I have heard suggestions to the contrary, I should also add that the changes will have no effect on prisoners held at the Secretary of State's pleasure or on lifers. They apply only to determinate sentences, and so they should.
The measures on finance that have been included in the Bill have been generally welcomed on both sides of the House. I am glad about that, because I believe that they have a particularly important part to play in cutting off resources to terrorists and so making it much more difficult for them to finance their campaigns of violence.
There will be new offences set out in the Bill and new powers of investigation. We have improved our machinery for co-ordinating the various agencies that are involved. Such measures have worked well in the case of drug trafficking, and I am glad that we are able to extend them to apply more widely to terrorism and violence.
Much of today's debate has focused on the question of exclusion. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked about the criteria for exclusion. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a person
is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism
or is attempting to enter the country with the intention of becoming so involved. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not make an order unless he was convinced that the individual concerned had been actively involved in or preparing for terrorism, either because of conviction for terrorist offences or because of reliable intelligence.
A great deal of interest, of course, has also been expressed about detention. I should tell the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that he confuses detention with trial. Detention is used as a preliminary to trial. People are not tried for offences under the prevention of terrorism legislation; they are detained with the intention of charges being made and brought forward under the ordinary criminal law. Throughout the debate the Labour party has failed to establish any means by which those who have been brought to justice as a result of the detention and arrest powers in the prevention of terrorism legislation could have been dealt with by using the ordinary process

of the law. The Labour party has simply not addressed itself to that question and therefore it is not surprising that it has not come up with a coherent attitude to the Bill.
During the 21 months from the beginning of last year until the end of September this year the statistics show that, of those detained for less than 48 hours, 17·5 per cent. were eventually charged; of those detained for more than four days, 35 per cent., or double the proportion, were charged. That is a measure of the practical value of such provisions in the fight against terrorism.
The question before the House is why the prevention of terrorism legislation is needed. We face a continuing large-scale campaign of systematically organised murder and violence. To do nothing to deal specifically with such crimes would be to neglect our duty to society. Whatever the Opposition may say about their intentions, the practical consequences of the Labour party's objections to the Bill would be to make a decisive shift away from the needs of the forces of law in favour of the men of violence.
Not to have the powers contained in the Bill would enlarge the opportunities for terrorists, increase the risks to members of the public as well as to the police and the Army, put more lives in jeopardy, hamper the efforts of the security forces to tackle terrorism and make it more difficult for the communities of Northern Ireland to achieve the necessary economic and political progress to grow out of the tensions and troubles that have beset them for so long.
For all those reasons I ask the House to give the Bill its overwhelming support.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 311.

Division No. 9]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, Bob


Armstrong, Hilary
Cummings, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Doran, Frank


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boateng, Paul
Eadie, Alexander


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Flynn, Paul


Buckley, George J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clay, Bob
George, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cohen, Harry
Golding, Mrs Llin






Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Brien, William


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Richardson, Jo


Hume, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Geoffrey


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


John, Brynmor
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sheerman, Barry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sillars, Jim


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Macdonald, Calum A.
Straw, Jack


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McGrady, Eddie
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Wall, Pat


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McTaggart, Bob
Wareing, Robert N.


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Madden, Max
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mallon, Seamus
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Meale, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beggs, Roy


Allason, Rupert
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole valley)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bottomley, Peter





Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayward, Robert


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Chris
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carttiss, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kennedy, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
Kilfedder, James


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Critchely, Julian
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kirkwood, Archy


Curry, David
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knox, David


Dicks, Terry
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lightbown, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Livsey, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fearn, Ronald
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
McCrea, Rev William


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mackay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclennan, Robert


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christoper
McNair-Wilson, P.New Forest)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maginnis, Ken


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maples, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brain






Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mellor, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Squire, Robin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steel, Rt Hon David


Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David
Stevens, Lewis


Molyneaux Rt Hon James
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stradling Thomas, sir John


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mudd, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thorne, Neil


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Price, Sir David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Raffan, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Redwood, John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Renton, Tim
Wallace, James


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Walters, Sir Dennis


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Warren, Kenneth


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Watts, John


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Wheeler, John


Rowe, Andrew
Whitney, Ray


Ryder, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilshire, David


Scott, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Woodcock, Mike


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Teller for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. David Maclean.


Soames, Hon Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put fothwith, Pursuant to Standing Order No.60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 45.

Division No. 10]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amos, Alan
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)





Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beggs, Roy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, W.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Body, Sir Richard
Gregory, Conal


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grylls, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Harris, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hawkins, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heddle, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Budgen, Nicholas
Holt, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Howard, Michael


Butler, Chris
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howe, Rt hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cartwright, John
Irvine, Michael


Cash, William
Irving, Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Janman, Tim


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cormack, Patrick
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Curry, David
Knox, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Ian


Devlin, Tim
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Livsey, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Favell, Tony
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fearn, Ronald
McCrea, Rev William


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McCrindle, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCusker, Harold


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maclennan, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLouglin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)






Madel, David
Redwood, John


Maginnis, Ken
Renton, Tim


Malins, Humfrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Mans, Keith
Reddick, Graham


Maples, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Mates, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Maude, Hon Francis
Rost, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Rowe, Andrew


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ryder, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sackville, Hon Tom


Mellor, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, David (Dover)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Miller, Sir Hal
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mills, Iain
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


Miscampbell, Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Shersby, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Monro, Sir Hector
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Speller, Tony


Moss, Malcolm
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mudd, David
Squire, Robin


Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Neubert, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Portillo, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Price, Sir David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thorne, Neil





Thornton, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Thurnham, Peter
Watts, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Bowen


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wheeler, John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trippier, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Woodcock, Mike


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Bill (T'side North)



Wallace, James
Teller for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Ward, John
Mr. David Maclean


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lamond, James


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livingstone, Ken


Battle, John
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Madden, Max


Boateng, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bradley, Keith
Mallon, Seamus


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Meale, Alan


Buchan, Norman
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Canavan, Dennis
Mullin, Chris


Clay, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter L.


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Dawn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Sedgemore, Brian


Cryer, Bob
Short, Clare


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Wall, Pat


Galloway, George
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Gordon, Mildred
Wray, Jimmy


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Heffer, Eric S.
Teller for the Noes:


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Eddie McGrady and


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Hume, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate; and
(ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: I do not think that the money resolution should go through without comment. As I understand it, we have 45 minutes in which to examine the pros and cons of the money resolution and I have always understood that that is one of the jobs of the House. It is clear that many Conservative Members are not interested in this because they are chatting. The hon. Members who are chatting by the Bar do not seem to be interested in one of the basic functions of the House—the scrutiny of expenditure.
The financial effects of the Bill are described on page V of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I should like to raise a few questions that, no doubt— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate kindly leave quietly?

Mr. Frank Haynes: Buzz off.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful. I would not use words like "buzz off", which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said most clearly, but I am grateful for your efforts, Mr. Speaker, and his. I realise that my hon. Friend wanted to be helpful in exercising some scrutiny.
Everyone treats money resolutions as some sort of joke and the House passes through hundreds, thousands or millions of pounds on the nod. If we were discussing a Bill that concerned social security, Conservative Members would not take that view. They would try to screw every last penny from the poorest in the country. If they can do that with Department of Social Security legislation, they can look at all the other legislation that goes through the House. Although I suspect that this legislation does not involve large expenditure, the paragraph in the explanatory and financial memorandum is so vague that it behoves Ministers to provide some more detailed information.
Page v of the introduction states, in connection with terrorist finances:
there are likely to be some additional investigation and prosecution costs for the police and the prosecution services; additional costs arising out of the provision of court services; extra legal aid; the costs of the receivers appointed to realise land subject to forfeiture orders; and possibly some limited expenditure on compensation.

The introduction then states that it is difficult to make such calculations. I cannot believe that the Home Office has not calculated an amount of money that would give some idea of the level of public expenditure.
I wonder what sort of compensation is envisaged in the paragraphs dealing with finance—possibly some limited expenditure on compensation. We need to ask what sort of compensation it is because the legislation envisages that some land or property might be seized in error and compensation will therefore have to be paid. The House should know.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will my hon. Friend advise me as to whether in the financial effects of the Bill, as determined on page v of the introduction to which he is referring, there is likely to be scope for compensation for those thousands of people who during the previous enactments of this legislation—when the provisions were annually re-enacted—were falsely and wrongly detained and who perhaps lost money from employment or from other arrangements such as holidays or other commitments? We know that 90 per cent. of the people who have been detained under the provisions of the previous enactments of the Bill have been wrongly and incorrectly detained. Is there scope in the money resolution for compensation for those who have been affected in that way?

Mr Cryer: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I shall seek that information. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has heard the question and I dare say that he will make the position clear. The comment on limited expenditure on compensation is limited to the clauses dealing with terrorist finances and therefore—

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Cryer: Perhaps I can finish this comment before the hon. Gentleman interrupts me. I should have thought that if compensation is involved for what is in effect wrongful arrest, that would be a general term and, indeed, there is a paragraph on exclusion orders, to which I shall come. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply.

Mr. Ashby: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that he does not think that it is right that money should be set aside for a fair hearing in a court and for legal aid for people who might be arrested under the prevention of terrorism legislation? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Is he denying such people justice?

Mr. Cryer: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have been saying instead of blurting out figments of his imagination which have no connection with my comments. Of course, I am not denying anybody any justice. Indeed I shall come to a point about injustice shortly.
What I am asking for is information about the expenditure. Since the Bill is being put forward by a Government who continually talk about the need for controlling, scrutinising and limiting public expenditure, it seems not unreasonable that I should use the opportunity specially provided by the Standing Orders of this House to raise some questions about expenditure.
What is the section on compensation for? If people are dealt with unjustly, I want to them to be compensated properly. There is no question about that. What does the


compensation cover? Is it for mistaken forfeiture or is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has suggested, for what amounts to wrongful imprisonment? The compensation provisions do not seem to apply to the exclusion order provisions, as set out on page v in the second paragraph under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill." It says:
Police expenditure will continue to be incurred in connection with the control of travel into and out of any part of the United Kingdom, but the Bill is not expected to lead to any significant increase in that expenditure.
We should like to know what is the present expenditure so that we can judge by how much it is likely to increase.
The exclusion order provisions are among the most objectionable in the Bill. I wonder whether the expenditure can be justified. We ought to be told what justification there is. Sir Cyril Philips and Lord Colville specifically stated in their reviews that the Home Secretary should reconsider these provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East pointed out, Lord Colville's views are not particularly radical, but he said that he was not convinced that the ends justify the means.
What kind of expenditure do these exclusion order provisions involve? I remind the Minister of what has happened under them. A former constituent of mine was in a Belfast gaol for a criminal offence. The governor granted him home leave with his family in the Bradford metropolitan district so that he could adjust to life outside gaol as he was nearing the end of his prison sentence. That was an entirely proper and authorised procedure. He was met at Leeds-Bradford airport by armed special branch detectives and was immediately arrested and placed in Armley prison. He stayed there throughout the whole of his seven-day home leave, was served with an exclusion order at Leeds-Bradford airport when he boarded the return flight and went straight back to prison in Belfast. Such arbitrary action was entirely unjustified.
Expenditure of that kind will be involved here. More than 90 per cent. of the people who are arrested and who are made subject to exclusion orders are not charged with a criminal offence. Exclusion orders are an outrage against justice. They mean that people in one part of the United Kingdom are excluded from another part—a part that is continually described as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
The only time when that power was exercised was when people such as Willy Gallagher were excluded from Clydeside to prevent them from attending meetings and setting forth their views. It was during a most repressive time under a most repressive Government.
I should like the Minister to tell the House whether this expenditure is justified. I know that he takes a keen interest in money resolutions.

Mr. Nellist: Will my hon. Friend reflect on yet another example during the period to which he referred? During the miners' strike in 1984 and 1985 a large number of people were excluded from entering or leaving the Nottinghamshire coalfields. That was done without legislation being passed by this House, but the inspiration for it was the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that illustration.
The family to whom I referred had moved away from Northern Ireland so as to be out of the troubles. They did not want to be involved in the activities of the warring factions.

Mr. William Ross: What exactly was this chap in prison for? He was obviously found guilty.

Mr. Cryer: Yes, he was found guilty. He was serving a sentence for armed robbery, but he was not connected in any way with a political terrorist organisation. The governor had given him home leave as a matter of course when he was nearing the end of his sentence. Conservative Members cannot make a case about him being a dangerous terrorist because he was released shortly afterwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted away from the money resolution. I am sure that he will come back to it.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to make it clear that it was a non-political category and that the expenditure of money on the exclusion order was unjustified, even within the terms of the legislation. That is a good illustration of the way in which expenditure can be misapplied because of the terms of the legislation.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's comments. He has obviously scrutinised the financial implications of the Bill. Are there likely to be financial implications for the state if it is found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of holding people for long periods? That could involve expenditure on legal costs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will not be tempted away from the money resolution. Commenting on the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) would take him outside the resolution.

Mr. Cryer: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your advice. However, you will have noticed that there is a reference to
some limited expenditure on compensation.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that phrase includes expenditure on claims made by people because the Government have ignored the decision of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which would place the legislation outside the normal standard of conduct on human rights.
The last paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill mentions
the fees of persons nominated by the Secretary of State to consider representations against exclusion orders, and in connection with the removal of persons subject to exclusion orders".
You will no doubt recall vividly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that exclusion orders can be served when there is no charge, no court hearing and no right to know why they are served, and representations are made about a charge for which no evidence is given. That is an outrage against our civil liberties.
I must make it clear that, although I am raising questions on the financial effects of the Bill, I am not making a case for acts of violence. I am opposed to acts of violence, whether they involve a British soldier serving his time in Northern Ireland who is subject to a terrible and


untimely death or spending £11 billion on Trident nuclear weapons for the purpose of mass extermination. I abhor and oppose them both. However, I will not go down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely using that as an illustration. I would be interested to know what the fees are for the people nominated by the Secretary of State. The last paragraph says:
A small amount of public expenditure will continue to be incurred in meeting the fees of persons nominated by the Secretary of State".
Just for the record, it would be nice to know how much those people are paid. That will give us an idea of whether they are pillars of the establishment, earning perhaps several hundred pounds per occasion, or whether they are just humble folk, drafted in by the Government like members of a jury and paid a nominal fee to cover their expenses. For example, are the fees related to what might be received by somebody on invalidity benefit or unemployment benefit? Are they related to what the mass of ordinary folk can expect to receive from the state if they are in a position to receive money from the state. That would be interesting to know.
I suspect that the people to whom fees are paid are pillars of the establishment and that they receive establishment-type fees, which are in the astronomical category, and which help to ensure that they do not come to a conclusion that is in any way outside the establishment view of the operation of this legislation.
I hope that I have not detained the House for too long, but we cannot let such occasions go by without some scrutiny. Even some Conservative Members take that view. They have listened with interest to my comments. I look forward to the Minister's response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke to the money resolution. I should have been deeply disappointed had he not done so, because I told my officials that he most certainly would. I was proved to be correct in that respect.
I am always struck by the economical use that the hon. Gentleman makes of his time in this place. For example, let us consider this debate and the preceding one. He came into the Chamber to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary open the debate. That was a jolly wise thing to do. He left before the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke. That, too, was a jolly wise thing to do. He then came back rather late in the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I imagine that he considered that he had come back rather too soon. Then he heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. All in all, the hon. Member for Bradford, South makes economical—not to say sparing—use of his time in this place.
I cannot be so complimentary about the substance of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the money resolution. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the House of the nature of the money provisions in the Bill and the money resolution. The substantive provision of the Bill is clause 25, which authorises the payment out of moneys. Those substantive powers are amplified by the money resolution which, in turn, are clarified by the explanatory memorandum.
It might be helpful if I were to demonstrate the kind of payments that fall within the scope of the money resolution before I refer to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
Good examples of the kind of payments that have to be made and are authorised are payments to the advisers who have been appointed to receive representations against exclusion orders, costs of removing people who are the subject of exclusion orders, necessary expenditure incurred by the courts when dealing with the powers under part III of the Bill, and the compensation provisions that are dealt with in schedule 4 of the Bill.

Mr. Nellist: I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's later remarks, but does he intend to give figures for those examples? He mentioned fees paid to people who are designated to hear representations against exclusion orders. That is one of the main matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked. Hon. Members are staying here tonight to hear not just the examples, but the actual amounts of money to be spent on them.

Mr. Hogg: I was coming to precisely that point.
Let me now deal with the various questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. He began by criticising the compensatory payments provided for under schedule 4 of the Bill. That was a bit peculiar, because, as the House will know, the schedule 4 compensatory provisions are linked to part III of the Bill. It appears that the provisional wing of the Labour party, as represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, find themselves in difficulty on that point.
As to what that is paid for, I strongly recommend to the hon. Gentleman as part of his evening reading that he studies paragraphs 7(1), 7(2) and 17(3) of schedule 4. He will find the answer spelt out in considerable detail and it will keep him going for at least 20 minutes. In broad terms, it deals with loss that can be properly be attributed to abuse in the conduct of prosecutions that give rise to the forfeiture proceedings under part III. I may have spared the hon. Gentleman some 20 minutes of homework.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asked whether the money resolution is retrospective in its effect. He knows perfectly well that both wings of the Labour party—the provisional and the official wings—are against retrospective legislation. Therefore, I feel certain that they would not wish to commend that course of action to us.

Mr. Nellist: May I remind the Minister that it was a Conservative Government who, under Lord Soames, when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, passed through this House retrospective legislation to grant an amnesty to those who had committed murder in Rhodesia. Since that precedent was set, I am in favour, for example, of repaying the debts of those who have taken out social fund loans. If a case was made for retrospective compensation for someone who was badly dealt with in the years when this was a temporary measure reviewed every year, I would support retrospective legislation.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is establishing his credentials for the clay cross. That is not an award that I willingly dish out, but I shall certainly dish it out to him along with the rations, if that is what pleases him.


In reply to the other questions from the provisional wing, if improper use is made of the detention powers, there are the ordinary common law remedies which are called false imprisonment and give rise to a claim for damages. Schedule 4 deals only with the powers under part III.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South waxed fulsome about actions by the police in carrying out the exclusion orders and asked how much it costs. The costs are inevitably subsumed in the general cost of police expenditure, and it is simply not possible to disaggregate one from the other. But every penny spent on combating terrorism is money well spent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
On the interesting question of the advisers, there are two of them. The hon. Gentleman asked how much they

cost. They are paid at a rate which is proportionate to their high professional standing and is analogous to that paid to those who serve in judicial roles on a part-time basis, such as recorders and assistant recorders.
I have answered all the questions asked of me, and, as I see that the Whip wants me to sit down, I propose to do just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate; and
(ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.

Orders of the Day — Home Loss Payments

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am delighted to have the opportunity this evening to raise a constituency case, but first I should like to say how grateful I am that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has come to reply to this debate tonight. I am grateful, too, for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who I hope will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am immensely pleased to see on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
The House, as is its wont and tradition, each day covers a wide range of national, international and sometimes regional issues; but it is always possible for a Back Bencher to seek an opportunity to present to the House the needs of an individual and his family when events outside the control of the individual and his family threaten his peace, security and calm. This, as the House knows, is one such case which deserves the attention of the House and a radical urgent response from my hon. Friend the Minister. The case presented is as follows.
My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Michie, have resided at their home, 7 Rose Villas, Watling street, Dartford—a quiet cul-de-sac off the old Roman road of Watling street—for many years and their house has always been their home. Now retired, Mr. and Mrs. Michie planned to see out their days in their home. I repeat that it is not a house but a home.
Some years ago, between 1984 and 1986, as a result of necessary road widening changes, part of the rear of No. 7, along with neighbouring properties, was taken over from Mr. and Mrs. Michie. As a result, the traffic noise and nuisance is now 70 ft nearer to the house than was originally the case. Authority required the land and authority took the land. Now authority requires their home as a consequential result of the construction of the new Dartford bridge.
Mr. and Mrs. Michie, through no fault or decision of theirs, are to lose their home. The severing of emotional links and the effects of anxiety and stress can never really be quantified. But under section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 Mr. and Mrs. Michie will be entitled to a home loss payment. I am advised that such a payment is made in recognition of the inconvenience and personal distress undergone by people who have become closely and emotionally attached to a home and who are displaced from it at the behest of a public authority.
On 27 November 1972, on Second Reading of the Land Compensation Bill, the then Secretary of State for the Environment said:
Home loss payments are provided for in Clauses 23 to 25 and will be made as of right to occupiers who have been living in a dwelling as their main residence for at least seven years before the date of their displacement".
He went on to say:
In England and Wales the amount of the payment will be seven times the rateable value if the displacement occurs before 1st April next year, and three times if it occurs thereafter. In Scotland it will be six times the rateable value. In all three countries the upper limit of the payment will be £1,500."—[Official Report, 27 November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 45.]
The House recognised that the problem existed and it tried to find a solution. But the range of payments for those who lose their homes through no fault of their own, fixed in 1972, is neither realistic nor fair in the circumstances of 1988. I believe that I am not alone in the House or in the other place in expressing that view.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, Mr. Michie, along with a neighbour, petitioned the House and another place in an attempt to have their views addressed. It took them a great deal of courage to take on Parliament, and their actions should be commended.
In a debate on 10 May 1988, when considering the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, Lord Underhill said:
I hope that there will be some quick action regarding the home loss position. I do not know whether it can be made retrospective in this case. But one must also recognise that the compulsory acquisition leaves these two individuals in a sorry situation".
The Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, went on to say:
As our response says, my right honourable friend. the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking at the whole question of the home loss payments system, which has to change in accordance with the Local Government Finance Bill, which we debated yesterday."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 1988; Vol. 496 c. 1041-42]
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister may be a little reluctant to reveal how the formula for assessing the award under the home loss payment scheme might be dealt with following the abolition of the domestic rate. Of course, the formula for assessing the award currently—and this will exist for some time—is simply to apply a multiplication, by a factor of three, of the rateable value of the house concerned. Therefore, my constituents will expect to gain just over £300.
Some time ago I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary what the level of award would be today if since 1972 there had been regular updating. He gave me not the answer that I wanted, but the factor that should be used taking account of inflation in that time, which was 4·5. Consequently, the level of payment today should be within a scale of £700 to £7,000, which is quite different from a level rising from a minimum of £150 to a maximum of £300.
In a letter to me on 11 November 1988, my hon. Friend said:
As you know, the Government, in its formal response to the Lords Select Committee Special Report on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, has already acknowledged that the value of the home loss payment has declined since its introduction in 1973.
Of course, I recognise that, and I am glad that that statement has been made.
Something needs to be done, and done quickly. because we in Kent are faced not with the case of just one family—and the case of one family is important to any hon. Member— but potentially many thousands of families, who, if a rail link is chosen to cross the county of Kent, will be affected by the loss of their homes, which will be taken from them by public authority.
I need to know from my hon. Friend the Minister why he cannot advise the House that it is possible to adjust the level of award before the introduction of the community charge. Secondly, when will he announce the formula that will take effect after the introduction of the community charge? Thirdly, will he accept a plea from me—and,indeed, from many others—that, because of the peculiar position in which my constituents find themselves, this


should be made retrospective, because, after all, this problem has been with his Department and the Department of Transport for some time?
I make one final plea for urgent action. In the main, hon. Members representing Kent constituencies are opposed to what may happen to our county if British Rail gets its way with the provision of a Channel tunnel fast-rail link. I am totally opposed to all four routes, but I must stress that my constituency is adamantly opposed to routes one and two. I shall not do as others have done and point to the other routes that might be acceptable. That is not the way that I go about things. However, I register my concern about the possibility of one route or another being chosen. In that context, the question of compensation must be cleared up and the home loss compensation scheme must be made clear, relevant and realistic.
I hope that my plea on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Michie will not be in vain. They have suffered hard and long in pursuit of their case. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a personal friend as well as a parliamentary one, will do his best to ensure that matters are put right at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for allowing me to participate in this debate on a subject of considerable interest to my constituents.
In our part of Kent, my hon. Friend is well known for the considerable care and interest that he takes in his constituents. That has led him to raise the case of Mr. and Mrs. Michie, which clearly exemplifies the considerable difficulties that we face. We believe that, should routes one and two of British Rail's current proposals for a high-speed rail link cross our constituencies, considerable difficulties will arise. We are vehemently opposed to those proposals.
In my constituency, hundreds of households face the prospect of demolition or being affected by the passage of such a high-speed train. The villages of Istead Rise and New Barn in my constituency would like to be reassured that the House and the Government have paid attention to updating the home loss payments scheme.
Not much time is left and our constituents are extremely worried about their future environment and, above all, the value of their homes should they have to leave their villages.
I warmly support my hon. Friend's plea and hope that the Minister will offer the prospect of early progress in this matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is one of the most important responsibilities of a Member of this House to promote fearlessly the cases of individual constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has a fine reputation for speaking up on behalf of his constituents. Tonight is another example of that put into practice.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and also on ensuring the attendance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, whose attendance

demonstrates his interest in the matter. My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) are also here to listen to this important debate. More hon. Members are present than one might expect at this time.
This debate is about one individual couple, Mr. and Mrs. Michie, but it also has a wider application. Mr. and Mrs. Michie are unhappy about the amount of home loss payment that they will receive when their house is compulsorily purchased by the Department of Transport. That compulsory purchase is necessary for road widening in connection with the new Dartford-Thurrock crossing.
It is correct to say that Mr. and Mrs. Michie are among the better-known constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. They certainly left a lasting impression upon the Select Committees in both Houses when they petitioned against the Bill authorising the construction of the crossing. My hon. Friend has also kept up steady pressure on their behalf through correspondence and questions in an effort to seek to resolve the issue of compensation.
Before I deal with the details of the case, I shall outline a home owner's entitlement under the land compensation Acts when a home is subject to compulsory purchase. First, the law provides that the owner should receive the full market value of his or her property, disregarding the effects of the proposals that necessitate the compulsory purchase. The market value is assessed by the district valuer. If there is a dispute about the valuation, the owner may take the matter to the Lands Tribunal, which decides the matter.
Secondly, the owner is reimbursed costs incurred because of the necessity of having to move to another property. For example, he may have to pay for altering carpets and curtains. The acquiring authority also meets legal and other fees incurred in connection with the move.
An owner receives the full market value of his home, plus actual costs of disturbance. In addition, if he has lived in the house for at least five years he is entitled to receive a home loss payment. That payment is made in recognition of the personal distress and inconvenience suffered by people who have been forced to move out of their homes. The payment is three times the rateable value of the property, subject to a minimum payment of £150 and a maximum payment of £1,500. It is the adequacy of that payment that my hon. Friend has raised tonight and that Mr. Michie raised in his petitions about the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill.
The Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill received Royal Assent on 28 June. Construction of a new bridge across the Thames to relieve the traffic congestion, which has become a serious problem at the Dartford tunnels, has already started. The tunnels are a vital link on the London orbital motorway. I do not think that my hon. Friend's constituents question the necessity of that link; they are concerned about the amount of compensation to which they may be entitled.
It is important to recognise that the bridge and tunnels will together provide a great improvement in traffic flow. On the Kent side of the river, the A282 passes through the town of Dartford. It was inevitable that, in the construction of the crossing, the widening of the road in that corridor would be necessary and that nearby properties would be affected. I am pleased to inform the House that, in fact, it will be necessary to acquire only nine


properties—far fewer than is often the case, and certainly far fewer than would need to be acquired if there were a new rail link for the Channel tunnel. However, that is obviously not much consolation to Mr. and Mrs. Michie.
The properties and other land will be acquired using the established compulsory purchase powers under section 2 of the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act. Among the nine properties to be acquired are two pairs of semi-detached houses known as Rose Villas, and it is in one of those houses that Mr. and Mrs. Michie have made their home for many years.
Shortly after the proposals for the approach road widening works were made public at exhibitions early in 1987, the occupiers of one of the properties at Rose Villas served a blight notice on the Department of Transport. The effect of a blight notice is to require the Department to buy any property that will be required for future road works and which, for that reason, cannot be sold on the open market. The blight notice was accepted and the occupants received compensation for the purchase of their property by the Department based on its open market value as assessed by the district valuer at that time. They were also reimbursed their expenses incurred in moving to a new property. They moved out in October 1987.
Mr. Michie and his two other neighbours decided that they would petition against the Bill when it came before the House of Commons Select Committee at the end of October 1987. Mr. Michie presented their case in person. He made it clear to the Select Committee that he and his neighbours accepted that it was impracticable to change the proposed widening works so as not to affect Rose Villas, but said that they were concerned about the arrangements for the award of compensation.
In its report in December 1987, the Select Committee recognised that there was an established system for the award of compensation in which it could not properly intervene, but it expressed the hope that the system would acknowledge and provide compensation for such disruption and anxiety as had been caused to Mr. Michie and his neighbours. In January 1988, one of Mr. Michie's co-petitioners decided to serve a blight notice on the Department of Transport to acquire his property at Rose Villas. That was accepted and the family finally moved out in August. Again, he received compensation under the established arrangements.
Mr. Michie and his remaining fellow neighbour Mr. Waddington decided that they would petition against the Bill before the Select Committee in another place, which they did in April. Again, Mr. Michie and his neighbour made the same points as before. At the same time, Mr. Michie disputed the informal valuation of his house which the local district valuer had recently given at a meeting arranged by the Department of Transport.
The Committee noted that under the Bill compensation would be payable in accordance with the land compensation code and that Mr. Michie would be entitled to a home loss payment under section 30. The Select Committee acknowledged that the amounts payable under the 1973 Act are relatively small and noted that they had not been increased since the Act was passed. My hon. Friend stressed that point. The Committee drew the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment to the apparent inadequacy of the maximum amounts payable under the home loss payment scheme. The Committee noted that under the terms of the Land Compensation Act 1973 the maximum figures payable

generally can be increased by an order made by the Secretary of State and subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
The Committee recognised the disruption and distress which had been caused, but took the view that it could not intervene in the well established procedures for the award of compensation. The Committee expressed the hope that, when the district valuer came to a final valuation of the property of Mr. Michie and his fellow petitioner, full account would be taken of the current escalation in the price of property, particularly in the south-east. My hon. Friend did not make an issue of that.
In its response to the Lords Select Committee, the Department of Transport noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had the system of home loss payments under active consideration in connection with the community charge proposals, but that the Government were not yet ready to announce their proposals. It recognised that the real value of home loss payments had declined since they were first introduced. My hon. Friend has elicited, through a question that I answered, that the extent of that loss of value amounts to about four and a half times the value that would have applied in 1973.
Since the Act was passed, formal notices to treat for the acquisition of their properties have been served on Mr. Michie and Mr. Waddington and negotiations between the district valuer and the agent acting for Mr. Wacldington have reached a successful conclusion. The Waddingtons moved out of their house and received a home loss payment of about £390 as a result.
Assuming that the outcome of the negotiations between Mr. Mitchie and the district valuer are satisfactory, it is likely that Mr. Michie will have his property possessed by the end of February next year. The home loss payments were introduced in 1973 as a solace for the distress and upset experienced by people who have formed an attachment to their homes and are displaced. They are paid over and above compensation for property and for disturbance.
The statutory provisions for home loss, both as to who qualifies and to the sum payable, are very clear and there is no room for argument, but Mr. Mitchie has argued that the home loss payment is too small to recompense him for his loss. That is the main issue that my hon. Friend has asked me to deal with this evening. I cannot dispute that the level of home loss payments today is far lower than it was in 1973. There has been a substantial decline in real terms. My hon. Friend says that the levels are neither realistic nor fair. There is no such thing as a right level of home loss payment, however. It is an additional solace rather than a reimbursement of financial loss.
The Government are actively considering this issue. I know it will be extremely frustrating for my hon. Friend to learn—although he may not be surprised to hear it—that I cannot announce the Government's final conclusions about this. It will be a little while yet before we can announce the changes we have in mind as a result of the abolition of domestic rates and the consequent abolition of domestic rateable values. My hon. Friend makes the fair point that it would be possible to adjust the rates before those changes come into effect. That point is well taken by the Government and is being considered. It would be wrong of me to say to my hon. Friend that that has been excluded by the Government as a possible interim solution.


My hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible to backdate any award as soon as the Government make an announcement about the proposed change. Although the power contained in section 30 of the 1973 Act enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to prescribe by order different multipliers and a different minimum or maximum payment from time to time, like most other order-making powers it cannot be applied retrospectively. It is a legal principle that subordinate legislation cannot be applied retrospectively unless express powers are given. Parliament is loth to give Ministers such a wide discretion except in exceptional cases, and the 1973 Act contains no such express power. Therefore, it would not be possible legally to make any order retrospective.
It is for the Government to reach a conclusion, and I know that my hon. Friend hopes that we will do that as soon as possible. I am sorry that I cannot announce anything now, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue in the way that he has and for drawing the attention of the House to an anomaly that must be resolved. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for pointing out that this matter has implications for other people whose properties are subject to compulsory purchase. That is another good reason for the Government to reach a conclusion at the earliest possible opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.